I am not selective about cannon. Show me with refrences where I have been selective.

I'd say this is both pretty selective, as well as factually wrong.

I could care less if they changed the B-Wing to fit with canon it already instantly kills almost every type of Imp fighter in one turn.

The Autoblaster is the only thing that's likely to one shot a Tie Fighter or Tie Interceptor. It has zero chance to kill the other 4 ships on the Imp Side. You're paying a pretty high price, in both points and range to do that. Not to mention the Autoblaster isn't only something you can put on the B-Wing.

A stock B-Wing is no more powerful then a stock X-Wing, or Tie Interceptor. All of which have a very, very small chance of killing a Tie Fighter or Interceptor with one shot.

But once again the larger point must be talked about. This is a competitive game, meant to be played against someone else. As such for it to be successful in even casual play, balance has to trump Canon.

We could multiply everything by 10 if it would make you feel better.

No, it wouldn't work at this point. But if I were involved in the design process back before the game shipped I would of recommended a higher point value.

I could care less if they changed the B-Wing to fit with canon it already instantly kills almost every type of Imp fighter in one turn.

First off, no it doesn't. It has as much chance to one shot a Tie Fighter as a X-Wing or Tie Interceptor does. Which is little to none.

Second, this statement makes it pretty clear you are little more then a Tie Interceptor fanboy, a term I hate to use, but in this case is clearly appropriate. You aren't interested in what's good for the game, or even what is canon vs what isn't. You just want your favored ship to be powerful as you think it should be.

So you'll drag up any tidbit you can find that supports your argument, but ignore anything that works against it. You aren't interested in what's canon, you just want your fantasy ship.

Chances are higher than you think that most Rebel Fighters can kill most Imp ships in one turn. See since most do not have shields they can be hit with crits pretty easily in one turn. At best most other Imperial Fighter will need 3 turns.

As for 2nd commet I feel the Avenger and Defender should have this same weapon and at the least should ignore shields with their attacks. It is only fair since the rebs have a weapon that takes away their only ability to survive.

Their is nothing that goes agianst my argument, if you are trying to say that the gamemechanics are canon in every sim then you are mistaken. Chee the holocron keeper has made an outline of what is canon in a game. Game mechanics are never canon unless they are refrenced in a non game source. Everything about the fighters in the X-Wing and TIE flight sim series except the damage from lasers and turbos are refrenced in other nongame sources.

But my larger point was that the game is an abstraction that has to make some hard and fast balance decisions that a movie narrative has no need to adhere to. If the screenwriter wants a ship to blow up in one shot, it will. If he wants it to survive several near misses and hits and still limp home, it will. Look at X-Wings in Episode IV - Luke gets shot about four times and R2 just keeps 'locking it down,' Wedge gets nailed and bails and lives to fight another day, most of the rest of Red Squadron takes one hit from Vader (mostly) or a random TIE and goes up in flames like they were the Hindenburg.

I must stress here, because you seem to be missing this point: this has nothing to do with the X-Wing shield output, the make and model of the TIE fighter guns, or anything else based in science, math, physics, logic, or canon. It happens solely for dramatic purposes. The Falcon was supposed to be caught in the explosion and blown up along with the Death Star - hence Han saying he had a feeling he'd never see her again. At the last minute they decided that was a downer ending and showed it getting clear.

This had nothing to do with the Falcon's engine modifications, how much shield power it could generate in the rear deflectors, whatever. The creative team just went "nah, that would be depressing" and rewrote it because they liked it better.

This applies to everything you see at any point throughout the series, read in any of the books or comics, or see played out in a video game cutscene. The entire concept of "canon' is slippery and tenuous at best, because it's often self-contradictory, is totally subservient to the needs of the narrative and often gets ret-conned after the fact to try and make it fit, and is all completely made up and therefore subjective to begin with.

Your entire argument about Interceptors is just silly. If you feel like they're a bit underpowered, well - sorry, but this is what FFG settled on for various reasons, it fits well for gameplay purposes, and most people feel it captures the 'feel' of the Interceptor pretty well. It's fast, well armed, but still fragile. It's an upgrade over the regular TIE in terms of speed, agility, and firepower, and that's exactly as canon as it's going to get - or needs to be, really, because that is the Interceptor in a nutshell.

If you don't like it I suppose you're welcome to keep complaining, but they're not going to change it at this point, and your arguments against the Interceptor as presented just don't make a lot of sense.

Not to mention the fact, throwing a snit about the way the Interceptor is portrayed in the game, only to turn around and say something like "I could care less if they changed the B-Wing to fit with canon" sort of throws your entire argument out the window. If you want to apply your understanding or interpretation of canon selectively, and only to ships you like or care about, you might as well just make up your own house rules because we can't help you.

You are taking my comment the wrong way since I wrote before I want the ships to better fit with cannon. I am not selective about cannon. Show me with refrences where I have been selective.

Umm, I did. Several times.

"I could care less if they changed the B-Wing to fit with canon it already instantly kills almost every type of Imp fighter in one turn," which is both stretching the truth and pretty much the definition of being selective about canon.

You have not once used a source. And now you are ignoring my posts saying I would rather everthing stick too canon.

Chances are higher than you think that most Rebel Fighters can kill most Imp ships in one turn.

No not really. Because I've seen the math and know it's not a very good chance. I don't remember the exact % but it was pretty low, like 10% or less IIRC, no where near even 30-50% anyway.

It is only fair since the rebs have a weapon that takes away their only ability to survive.

If you're referring to the Autoblaster... That system is pretty well balanced with the cost, as well as the range it can be used at. In most metas it's even all that popular because it's so hard to use effectively.

Chee the holocron keeper has made an outline of what is canon in a game.

Once again, what is or isn't canon can be debated... But it's also largely meaningless, because Canon has to take a backseat to Balance in a game like X-Wing.

But even then, I'm sure if I really wanted to, I could pull up any number of examples of X-Wings and other Reb ships surviving attacks by Tie Interceptors or other Imp ships. So your whole argument that Interceptors should be able to one shot a X-Wing fails on both fronts.

You have not once used a source.

Sure he did, he used you as a source, just like I did. Just could of formatted it better...

And now you are ignoring my posts saying I would rather everthing stick too canon.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. You can't say you want everything to be canon, then say you don't care if the B-Wing is canon or not. Those are clearly contradictory statements.

But as CW said... You can keep posting about it if you want, but nothing is going to change.

FFG is not going to make the Interceptor guns more powerful then they already are, they're already the most powerful primary weapon in the game. If you want to change them for your own group feel free. You might even find people who would help you figure out how to do it.

But you have now entered the world of the homebrew campaign, and no longer are playing by the FFG ruleset. Something that is not appropriate to this sub-form.

We could multiply everything by 10 if it would make you feel better.

No, it wouldn't work at this point. But if I were involved in the design process back before the game shipped I would of recommended a higher point value.

I could care less if they changed the B-Wing to fit with canon it already instantly kills almost every type of Imp fighter in one turn.

First off, no it doesn't. It has as much chance to one shot a Tie Fighter as a X-Wing or Tie Interceptor does. Which is little to none.

Second, this statement makes it pretty clear you are little more then a Tie Interceptor fanboy, a term I hate to use, but in this case is clearly appropriate. You aren't interested in what's good for the game, or even what is canon vs what isn't. You just want your favored ship to be powerful as you think it should be.

So you'll drag up any tidbit you can find that supports your argument, but ignore anything that works against it. You aren't interested in what's canon, you just want your fantasy ship.

Chances are higher than you think that most Rebel Fighters can kill most Imp ships in one turn. See since most do not have shields they can be hit with crits pretty easily in one turn. At best most other Imperial Fighter will need 3 turns.

As for 2nd commet I feel the Avenger and Defender should have this same weapon and at the least should ignore shields with their attacks. It is only fair since the rebs have a weapon that takes away their only ability to survive.

Their is nothing that goes agianst my argument, if you are trying to say that the gamemechanics are canon in every sim then you are mistaken. Chee the holocron keeper has made an outline of what is canon in a game. Game mechanics are never canon unless they are refrenced in a non game source. Everything about the fighters in the X-Wing and TIE flight sim series except the damage from lasers and turbos are refrenced in other nongame sources.

Ugh where to even start with this. First, go search and you'll find the math. With everything being average: 3 attack dice versus 3 defense dice at range 2, the odds of rolling 3 hits (or a combination of hits and crits that do double damage) and the defender not rolling a single evade - or having a focus token, or having taken an evade action, are NOT good. The X-Wing or B-Wing will reliably land 1 hit in that scenario, 2 if he's lucky. Three hits getting through requires an exceptional combination of good luck on one side and bad luck on the other, and while they certainly do line up on occasion, it doesn't happen very often.

Second, "I feel" isn't really a point of debate. You can feel however you like, but that doesn't mean that FFG is going to go along with it, or that those two ships are guaranteed to be added to the game anytime soon. So I'm not sure what the point is in even bringing this up.

Third, if you think I'm arguing that game mechanics are canon, you are gravely missing the point. I said the exact opposite, repeatedly, in several ways. I said that canon cannot always dictate the game mechanics. I said furthermore that canon is so slippery and contradictory from one source to the next (movies, comic books, video games, miniatures games, novels, etc) that canon isn't the holy grail people want to make it out to be in the first place. And that, again, you cannot always let canon design the game. Guide the game, sure. And most people seem to think that with the Interceptor, it has guided the game mechanics just fine, while not tried to chain the game mechanics to canon. That is, if you're still not getting it, the exact OPPOSITE of saying that game mechanics dictate canon.

And you just shot your whole argument in the foot (again) when you said "Everything about the fighters in the X-Wing and TIE flight sim series except the damage from lasers and turbos are refrenced in other nongame sources." If everything in the sims except the damage from lasers is referenced elsewhere, and therefore - by your definition, anyway - canon - then that would be strong evidence that there isn't a solid canon model for the damage from the lasers of, say, the Interceptor.

But my larger point was that the game is an abstraction that has to make some hard and fast balance decisions that a movie narrative has no need to adhere to. If the screenwriter wants a ship to blow up in one shot, it will. If he wants it to survive several near misses and hits and still limp home, it will. Look at X-Wings in Episode IV - Luke gets shot about four times and R2 just keeps 'locking it down,' Wedge gets nailed and bails and lives to fight another day, most of the rest of Red Squadron takes one hit from Vader (mostly) or a random TIE and goes up in flames like they were the Hindenburg.

I must stress here, because you seem to be missing this point: this has nothing to do with the X-Wing shield output, the make and model of the TIE fighter guns, or anything else based in science, math, physics, logic, or canon. It happens solely for dramatic purposes. The Falcon was supposed to be caught in the explosion and blown up along with the Death Star - hence Han saying he had a feeling he'd never see her again. At the last minute they decided that was a downer ending and showed it getting clear.

This had nothing to do with the Falcon's engine modifications, how much shield power it could generate in the rear deflectors, whatever. The creative team just went "nah, that would be depressing" and rewrote it because they liked it better.

This applies to everything you see at any point throughout the series, read in any of the books or comics, or see played out in a video game cutscene. The entire concept of "canon' is slippery and tenuous at best, because it's often self-contradictory, is totally subservient to the needs of the narrative and often gets ret-conned after the fact to try and make it fit, and is all completely made up and therefore subjective to begin with.

Your entire argument about Interceptors is just silly. If you feel like they're a bit underpowered, well - sorry, but this is what FFG settled on for various reasons, it fits well for gameplay purposes, and most people feel it captures the 'feel' of the Interceptor pretty well. It's fast, well armed, but still fragile. It's an upgrade over the regular TIE in terms of speed, agility, and firepower, and that's exactly as canon as it's going to get - or needs to be, really, because that is the Interceptor in a nutshell.

If you don't like it I suppose you're welcome to keep complaining, but they're not going to change it at this point, and your arguments against the Interceptor as presented just don't make a lot of sense.

Actully the Falcon surviving the hypermatter has everything to do with the type of shields it has. As I have pointed out time and agian named characters have been taken out by non named Interceptors, so what your saying isnt exactly true and oesnt fit with the seens I pointed out with no named pilots are fighting eacother and the Interceptor one shots them. The clearly show in every medium that TIE Fighters need to hit Reb fighter more than once to kill them like 4-8 times and it doesnt matter if they are named or not. Then ypu see the Interceptor and with its 9.3 cannons it is taking out reb fighters with one beam. You see it in more than one source tearing the crap out of Cap ship armor.

Not to mention the fact, throwing a snit about the way the Interceptor is portrayed in the game, only to turn around and say something like "I could care less if they changed the B-Wing to fit with canon" sort of throws your entire argument out the window. If you want to apply your understanding or interpretation of canon selectively, and only to ships you like or care about, you might as well just make up your own house rules because we can't help you.

You are taking my comment the wrong way since I wrote before I want the ships to better fit with cannon. I am not selective about cannon. Show me with refrences where I have been selective.

Umm, I did. Several times.

"I could care less if they changed the B-Wing to fit with canon it already instantly kills almost every type of Imp fighter in one turn," which is both stretching the truth and pretty much the definition of being selective about canon.

You have not once used a source. And now you are ignoring my posts saying I would rather everthing stick too canon.

I just quoted you, directly, cut and paste, for like the third time - how is that not using a source? The part between the quotes? That was you. You typed those exact words, which I keep scrolling up and copying and pasting from an earlier post. That is the very definition of using a source.

And I'm not ignoring your posts saying you would rather everything stick to canon - although, as Vandor pointed out, you keep saying that and then contradicting it. I'm saying everything can't and furthermore shouldn't stick too literally to canon. Even if canon were ironclad and uniform and universally agreed upon (none of which are true), that would make for a terrible game. I don't get how you're missing that entire part of this argument.

I'm not ignoring your posts - I am flat out saying "those posts are wrong." If the game tried to adhere to canon as strictly as you claim to want, it would be an unbalanced, unplayable, contradictory mess.

"Actully the Falcon surviving the hypermatter has everything to do with the type of shields it has."

No, it really doesn't. If the writer wants the ship to blow up, it blows up. If he wants it not to blow up, it does not blow up. Nothing about that has anything to do with the type of shields attributed to the ship - it is a purely creative decision.

The entire concept of canon is just the process of trying to go back after the fact and put more thought into making sense of what you saw onscreen than the original writers ever did.

Chances are higher than you think that most Rebel Fighters can kill most Imp ships in one turn.

No not really. Because I've seen the math and know it's not a very good chance. I don't remember the exact % but it was pretty low, like 10% or less IIRC, no where near even 30-50% anyway.

It is only fair since the rebs have a weapon that takes away their only ability to survive.

If you're referring to the Autoblaster... That system is pretty well balanced with the cost, as well as the range it can be used at. In most metas it's even all that popular because it's so hard to use effectively.

Chee the holocron keeper has made an outline of what is canon in a game.

Once again, what is or isn't canon can be debated... But it's also largely meaningless, because Canon has to take a backseat to Balance in a game like X-Wing.

But even then, I'm sure if I really wanted to, I could pull up any number of examples of X-Wings and other Reb ships surviving attacks by Tie Interceptors or other Imp ships. So your whole argument that Interceptors should be able to one shot a X-Wing fails on both fronts.

Your basing your math on if a computer where to roll those dice and not a person. People make their own luck when rolling dice. Some people suck at it others roll high on average.

Your not going to find examles of Reb ships one beam killing Imp fighters unless 1 Its a Y-Wing A4, 2 B-Wings with Heavy Laser 3 They were already damaged 4 They shot through the cockpit window 5 Missile or raming attack. Most TIEs have less armor than Reb fighters so it would be no surprise they can kill them fast.

I'm basing my math on the fact that it's math, and luck is an invented concept that makes people feel better or worse about how their random rolls come out.

Your arguments are so all over the place at this point I'm honestly no longer even sure what point you're trying to MAKE.

"Actully the Falcon surviving the hypermatter has everything to do with the type of shields it has."

No, it really doesn't.

If anything... The type of shields it has and the values for it, are made up to account for what is seen on screen, not the other way around.

The writers don't have some tech-spec document that they use to decide what does or doesn't happen, the tech-spec doc is written to account for what the writers decide they want to do. That makes Canon a really lousy thing to base rules on. Because canon is nothing more then trying to build a rule set out of what someone thought would be cool to see or read.

X-Wing as a whole does a really good job of making a well balanced game that still captures the feel of the canon source, but don't think for a moment that canon will ever or should ever matter more then balance.

And for hopefully the last time, your idea of what the interceptor guns should do, is fairly questionable in the first place. Even if we did place Canon over Balance I don't think what you're asking for would be how it plays out anyway.

We could multiply everything by 10 if it would make you feel better.

No, it wouldn't work at this point. But if I were involved in the design process back before the game shipped I would of recommended a higher point value.

I could care less if they changed the B-Wing to fit with canon it already instantly kills almost every type of Imp fighter in one turn.

First off, no it doesn't. It has as much chance to one shot a Tie Fighter as a X-Wing or Tie Interceptor does. Which is little to none.

Second, this statement makes it pretty clear you are little more then a Tie Interceptor fanboy, a term I hate to use, but in this case is clearly appropriate. You aren't interested in what's good for the game, or even what is canon vs what isn't. You just want your favored ship to be powerful as you think it should be.

So you'll drag up any tidbit you can find that supports your argument, but ignore anything that works against it. You aren't interested in what's canon, you just want your fantasy ship.

Chances are higher than you think that most Rebel Fighters can kill most Imp ships in one turn. See since most do not have shields they can be hit with crits pretty easily in one turn. At best most other Imperial Fighter will need 3 turns.

As for 2nd commet I feel the Avenger and Defender should have this same weapon and at the least should ignore shields with their attacks. It is only fair since the rebs have a weapon that takes away their only ability to survive.

Their is nothing that goes agianst my argument, if you are trying to say that the gamemechanics are canon in every sim then you are mistaken. Chee the holocron keeper has made an outline of what is canon in a game. Game mechanics are never canon unless they are refrenced in a non game source. Everything about the fighters in the X-Wing and TIE flight sim series except the damage from lasers and turbos are refrenced in other nongame sources.

Ugh where to even start with this. First, go search and you'll find the math. With everything being average: 3 attack dice versus 3 defense dice at range 2, the odds of rolling 3 hits (or a combination of hits and crits that do double damage) and the defender not rolling a single evade - or having a focus token, or having taken an evade action, are NOT good. The X-Wing or B-Wing will reliably land 1 hit in that scenario, 2 if he's lucky. Three hits getting through requires an exceptional combination of good luck on one side and bad luck on the other, and while they certainly do line up on occasion, it doesn't happen very often.

Second, "I feel" isn't really a point of debate. You can feel however you like, but that doesn't mean that FFG is going to go along with it, or that those two ships are guaranteed to be added to the game anytime soon. So I'm not sure what the point is in even bringing this up.

Third, if you think I'm arguing that game mechanics are canon, you are gravely missing the point. I said the exact opposite, repeatedly, in several ways. I said that canon cannot always dictate the game mechanics. I said furthermore that canon is so slippery and contradictory from one source to the next (movies, comic books, video games, miniatures games, novels, etc) that canon isn't the holy grail people want to make it out to be in the first place. And that, again, you cannot always let canon design the game. Guide the game, sure. And most people seem to think that with the Interceptor, it has guided the game mechanics just fine, while not tried to chain the game mechanics to canon. That is, if you're still not getting it, the exact OPPOSITE of saying that game mechanics dictate canon.

And you just shot your whole argument in the foot (again) when you said "Everything about the fighters in the X-Wing and TIE flight sim series except the damage from lasers and turbos are refrenced in other nongame sources." If everything in the sims except the damage from lasers is referenced elsewhere, and therefore - by your definition, anyway - canon - then that would be strong evidence that there isn't a solid canon model for the damage from the lasers of, say, the Interceptor.

Agian the model you are using is based off a computer rolling the dice and not people.

My argument it not shot in the foot because what is determend as canon has been outlined, their are also many many sources showing what the 9.3 can do one of which is the movie it self.

Like I said you are taking my post about the B-Wing out of context. I am tired about the B-Wing being brought up in this topic when before hand it was about the 9.3 and not just on Interceptors.

Your buddy is the person I am talking to about he gamemechanics for lasers in whatever games he is using in his argument that 9.3 do as much damage as depicted in those games. And in most games it is depicted as having really low fire power. In the actual stories in every medium they are consistantly obiliterating what ever fighter they hit unless it is heavily moded, which is pretty rare.

Not this medium, they're not.

Zing!

"Actully the Falcon surviving the hypermatter has everything to do with the type of shields it has."

No, it really doesn't. If the writer wants the ship to blow up, it blows up. If he wants it not to blow up, it does not blow up. Nothing about that has anything to do with the type of shields attributed to the ship - it is a purely creative decision.

The entire concept of canon is just the process of trying to go back after the fact and put more thought into making sense of what you saw onscreen than the original writers ever did.

Oh I see so the writters exist in universe and made the falcon survive... The shields are the reason it survived in universe. It is true the writers dictate what will happen in a this movie, but it was also the writers that made the refrences sheet for the FX crew to follow for the characteristics of each type of fighter in the movies. This can be seen in the SW complete blu-ray set special features. This has carried on through to the other mediums.

I'm basing my math on the fact that it's math, and luck is an invented concept that makes people feel better or worse about how their random rolls come out.

Your arguments are so all over the place at this point I'm honestly no longer even sure what point you're trying to MAKE.

Since you are hostile I supose this is my last post to you.

Your basing your math on if a computer where to roll those dice and not a person. People make their own luck when rolling dice. Some people suck at it others roll high on average.

And we have left reality behind...

People do not make their own luck. "In my experience there's no such thing as luck".

No one rolls high on average, such a thing is clearly nonsense... Everyone rolls average on average. Sure you might have a combat round or even a whole game in which someone rolls very well or very poorly. But on average everyone rolls the same... That being on average.

I'm basing my math on the fact that it's math, and luck is an invented concept that makes people feel better or worse about how their random rolls come out.

Your arguments are so all over the place at this point I'm honestly no longer even sure what point you're trying to MAKE.

Since you are hostile I supose this is my last post to you.

I'm not being hostile - I literally am no longer sure what it is you're trying to argue in favor of here. What is it you want exactly?

This has carried on through to the other mediums.

Yes but the whole point we're trying to make is that trying to use what happens in a movie or story isn't a good way to design a game rule, because the writers decide what happens based on what makes the best drama, not what makes the most sense.

"Actully the Falcon surviving the hypermatter has everything to do with the type of shields it has."

No, it really doesn't. If the writer wants the ship to blow up, it blows up. If he wants it not to blow up, it does not blow up. Nothing about that has anything to do with the type of shields attributed to the ship - it is a purely creative decision.

The entire concept of canon is just the process of trying to go back after the fact and put more thought into making sense of what you saw onscreen than the original writers ever did.

Oh I see so the writters exist in universe and made the falcon survive... The shields are the reason it survived in universe. It is true the writers dictate what will happen in a this movie, but it was also the writers that made the refrences sheet for the FX crew to follow for the characteristics of each type of fighter in the movies. This can be seen in the SW complete blu-ray set special features. This has carried on through to the other mediums.

Has this conversation actually devolved to the point where I need to pull you aside and explain the entire concept of make believe? There is no "universe," dude. It is fiction. Science fiction - might ring a bell?

The Interceptor is not shown as doing more damage because it has v9.3 cannons or whatever. Someone invented the concept of the laser cannon upgrade to retcon an explanation for the fact they generally show the Interceptor has having better firepower. You have this completely backwards. Someone, after the fact, sat down and went "hmm it seems to have better firepower than a regular TIE - what if it had its weapons upgraded?"

And for the last time - these are fictional characters. The writers determine everything that happens in the universe. Period. They do not "exist" in universe - the universe does not exist without the writers. Fiction. Make believe. Storytelling. All of the makes and models and numbers and stats are created after the fact by people trying to make sense of what they saw or read. Not the other way around.

Someone, after the fact, sat down and went "hmm it seems to have better firepower than a regular TIE - what if it had its weapons upgraded?"

Which is pretty well accounted for with the 33% increase in firepower it has over the Tie/Ln or Tie/Ad

"Actully the Falcon surviving the hypermatter has everything to do with the type of shields it has."

No, it really doesn't.

If anything... The type of shields it has and the values for it, are made up to account for what is seen on screen, not the other way around.

The writers don't have some tech-spec document that they use to decide what does or doesn't happen, the tech-spec doc is written to account for what the writers decide they want to do. That makes Canon a really lousy thing to base rules on. Because canon is nothing more then trying to build a rule set out of what someone thought would be cool to see or read.

X-Wing as a whole does a really good job of making a well balanced game that still captures the feel of the canon source, but don't think for a moment that canon will ever or should ever matter more then balance.

And for hopefully the last time, your idea of what the interceptor guns should do, is fairly questionable in the first place. Even if we did place Canon over Balance I don't think what you're asking for would be how it plays out anyway.

I have written this over and over agian the writes do have a chart the made dduring the movies. The reason most fans didnt know about this prob has to do with the fact their was barly and behind the scenes documentries done for the OT untll the blu-ray sets came out.

Well my refrences show diffrently, 9.3 where made to kill shielded fighters. The only kind that cant one beam kill fighters are the blaster kind which I where built for having a real high rate of fire.

Just another example is when Baron Fel took on Red Star 1 and destroyed it and the Countis piloting it. Red Star 1 was the most beefed up TIE Defender to exist. The only thing not Heavily moded on it was the 9.3s.

Your basing your math on if a computer where to roll those dice and not a person. People make their own luck when rolling dice. Some people suck at it others roll high on average.

And we have left reality behind...

People do not make their own luck. "In my experience there's no such thing as luck".

No one rolls high on average, such a thing is clearly nonsense... Everyone rolls average on average. Sure you might have a combat round or even a whole game in which someone rolls very well or very poorly. But on average everyone rolls the same... That being on average.

I watched a documentry about probability, dice rolling was part of it and all people do not roll the same. To say otherwise is to say infinity is not infinite.

I watched a documentry about probability, dice rolling was part of it and all people do not roll the same.

Not sure what documentary you watched... But if it's trying to claim that a dice roll is based on the person rolling it, and not subject to the laws of probability. Well I think that says it all right there. I know at this point I'm done beating my head against this wall.

You have rejected good game design, ignored cases where canon doesn't support your argument, and even have now rejected the laws of probability... I see no reason to debate with someone who has left reality behind.

Again and for the last time. Regardless of any of your other "arguments" what you are asking for will not and should not happen. You can't give the kind of fire power you're asking for to the Tie Interceptor without having a price so high that you'd be able to field 1 of them in a 100 point list. To do otherwise would break the game itself.