Thanks for the math Major.

I think this is nothing uprising at all. I thought most people already knew that Tie Fighters are SUPER cost-effective in a straight up fight.

I'm surprised people get so upset, I mean, I know it's a little bit boring that they are so good.

But here is the thing. The math part doesn't tell the WHOLE truth which is why, we see this in that swarms doesn't win all the time. Also, I guess the mathematics behind this doesn't account for variance (that is, a Defender one-shotting a Fighter) , or am I wrong? (Please don't say I'm wrong). It assumes average rolls?

I have said this before, I PERSONALLY think that it's not the other ships that are over-costed, it's the Fighter that is UNDER-costed.

Sorry for being a little off-topic.

About the Defender, yeah it is a little sad if it's gonna be an Advance all over again. But then again, it's better to have a ship that is under-powered than having a ship that is just TOO good.

At the moment the only ships I feel are a little too good are B-wings and maybe just a little the YT-1300.

On the Imp side Firesprays are good stat-wise but a little to hard to fly.

Also, if it wasn't for the YT-1300 the Interceptor would be an amazing ship IMHO.

I would LOVE a comparison between

1. 7 Tie Fighters (with Howl) vs 1). Howl + 5 Scimitars

2. 7 Tie Fighters vs 6 Scimitars.

Thanks Major for sharing your findings

I also think the reason we don't see many tournament interceptor lists is less to do with flaws in the interceptor and more due to the dominance of YT lists, which nerf the interceptor (and A-wing)'s greatest strength.

I would think so as well - in addition to the possibility of having your interceptor one-shotted, which is impossible vs. a defender.

On that note - i would like to see what the "power ranking" (for lack of a better term) is for a normal HSF list?

Advanced proton torpedo's + Opportunist + Jan = 1 shot tie defender is a possibility.

I dunno. One thing to consider is how much agility dice is being rolled in the face of whatever is attacking it. Apart from ordinance, this is usually 3, and the defender can meet it with 3 agility. Moreover it's one of the highest-health fighters for the Empire at 6. Only the TIE Bomber has equal health among the small ships and it has a poorer dial and lesser agility.

So it should cancel as many hits as an average TIE Fighter, has one of the highest HP among Imperial fighters, and likely a surprising and superior dial.

I don't think it would replace Interceptors for sake of cost but I can see Defenders supplanting the fragile elite pilot builds with a little more heft to protect them. I also don't see running 3 at PS 1 a very likely option for reasons stated... too vulnerable. PS1s are probably going to be in to escort better ace craft or heavier ships. I want to look at the aces, but I've already preordered two on the presumption that two defender aces are the most I'd comfortably want to run in competitive situations.

And imagine if it did have a white K-turn. Now you might be able to win jousting matches with rebel fighters and have actions! TL at range 1 with Autoblasters!

If Munitions Fail[safe?] does what a lot of people are speculating it does, it'll be a nice tool to help counter swarms - no more 'swing and a miss' assault missiles.

Ignoring actions and dials....

Interceptor 18 + 3x shield upgrade = 30 and 3,3,3,3 stat line.

Perspective #1

The best ship for direct comparison is the 3/3/3/0 TIE Interceptor. Start with an 18 point PS1 TIE Interceptor, add 3 shields at 4 points each, and you're at 30 points. The problem is:

• The built-in cost of shields / hull should cost FAR less than the upgrade cost. It's not an effective way to spend points. So a PS1 Defender is an even worse way to spend points than a PS1 Interceptor.
• PS1 TIE Interceptors are already not an effective use of points, and don't get used competitively with any apparent success.

If you go by Lanchester's Law, then the point cost compared to an Interceptor should go as: 18*2^0.5 = 25.5

Then nudge the cost up slightly to account for the extra hit points being shields not hull, and you're at around 27 points. Off-the-cuff math, if we call 3 shields + 3 hull to be worth 6.75 hull (about a reasonable estimate), then 18*2.25^0.5 = 27.

So we're left with another 3 points, and the following differences between the Interceptor and the Defender (that we know so far):

Pros:

• Gains the Target Lock action
• Gains the cannon slot and missile slot
• Has a different dial, with some kind of a new maneuver never before seen.
• Has some way that at least one of the pilots can get an evade token. This could be related to the above maneuver, or it could be related to an EPT. If it's a non exclusive EPT (as all have been so far), then it doesn't help balance the ship at all, since anyone can take it.

Cons:

• Looses the Evade action
• Looses the Boost action

So, we have a ship that is probably less points efficient than an existing ship that already isn't used competitively. We still have to wait and see about the rest of its abilities, but right now it looks quite overcosted.

Just something that occurred to me, and I realize it would be difficult to simulate any way other than what you are doing, but isn't a "lowest pilot skill no upgrades" comparison heavily in favor of the tie fighters considering they are balance around large numbers and no upgrades? Would a match of 8 fighters with the leftover four points spent somehow against three defenders, one with HLC and stealth device change anything? Or three defenders two with autoblaster? Assault missiles? Some combination? I am genuinely curious. 8 points is 2/3s of a tie but it's also an upgrade from a rookie to Wedge.

You really have to compare apples to apples. That's why I am comparing the baseline PS1 Defender relative to the baseline PS1 Interceptor, and PS1 TIE Fighter. Also, I was generally running the numbers at a 120 point squad so both sides had exactly the same points. Hence 4 Defenders vs 10 TIE Fighters. So it is a fair comparison, and is particularly relevant if Epic play increases the point limit. I did compare the 7 TIE Swarm at 84 points vs 3 Defenders at 90 points, and the Defenders still lose pretty badly unless they have some serious Kung-Fu maneuvering. Bear in mind, with larger point caps, it's going to get harder and harder to avoid all firing arcs, so maneuverability should become slightly less important in the meta game. Folks that have played 200+ point battles can chime in here with their experience, I'm speaking (mostly) from theory on this one.

You can reasonably argue that merely having a cannon slot should increase the cost of the ship, even if you don't use it. That obviously will automatically make the ship a less efficient use of points if you don't equip a cannon. The 27 point "fair value" that I arrived at for the Defender doesn't not increase the ship's cost because of the cannon slot.

And, again, that 27 points is "fair" compared to a PS1 Interceptor, which is almost assuredly overpriced to begin with. If a "fair" price for the Interceptor was 17 points, then the "fair cost" of the Defender would be in the range of 17*2.25^0.5 = 25.5, not 27. But the ship costs 30! Unless it can do something like get a free evade every round, I don't ever see it getting used competitively, regardless of its dial. We'll see though.

I dunno. One thing to consider is how much agility dice is being rolled in the face of whatever is attacking it. Apart from ordinance, this is usually 3, and the defender can meet it with 3 agility. Moreover it's one of the highest-health fighters for the Empire at 6. Only the TIE Bomber has equal health among the small ships and it has a poorer dial and lesser agility.

See "Perspective 1" in the OP, where this is clearly discussed in terms of Lanchester's Law and the square-root law for increasing health. The answer for "fair valued" point cost is 27 for an 18 point PS1 TIE Interceptor, or 25.5 points if you argue that the TIE Interceptor should be 17 points to be balanced.

I don't know what kind of crap flying you/your opponents are doing but I haven't lost "a TIE per round" in more than 30 games.

I've lost a Tie per round a few times. That isn't fun...

In other news, I definitely think 3 Agi and 6 total hp will be very difficult to kill some games, and not as difficult other games, especially if you are running a 2 dice swarm. It's hard enough for 1 Tie to take out another Tie with only 3 hp. Also, don't forget you can put Stealth Device on the Defender, which will may give it even more effective hp. Stealth Device is no joke just on Howlrunner and her 3 hp, so it'll be a beast on the Defender. You'll finally get that 1 hit, only to have to chew through 5 more 3 agi hp.

Just something that occurred to me, and I realize it would be difficult to simulate any way other than what you are doing, but isn't a "lowest pilot skill no upgrades" comparison heavily in favor of the tie fighters considering they are balance around large numbers and no upgrades? Would a match of 8 fighters with the leftover four points spent somehow against three defenders, one with HLC and stealth device change anything? Or three defenders two with autoblaster? Assault missiles? Some combination? I am genuinely curious. 8 points is 2/3s of a tie but it's also an upgrade from a rookie to Wedge.

You really have to compare apples to apples. That's why I am comparing the baseline PS1 Defender relative to the baseline PS1 Interceptor, and PS1 TIE Fighter. Also, I was generally running the numbers at a 120 point squad so both sides had exactly the same points. Hence 4 Defenders vs 10 TIE Fighters. So it is a fair comparison, and is particularly relevant if Epic play increases the point limit. I did compare the 7 TIE Swarm at 84 points vs 3 Defenders at 90 points, and the Defenders still lose pretty badly unless they have some serious Kung-Fu maneuvering. Bear in mind, with larger point caps, it's going to get harder and harder to avoid all firing arcs, so maneuverability should become slightly less important in the meta game. Folks that have played 200+ point battles can chime in here with their experience, I'm speaking (mostly) from theory on this one.

You can reasonably argue that merely having a cannon slot should increase the cost of the ship, even if you don't use it. That obviously will automatically make the ship a less efficient use of points if you don't equip a cannon. The 27 point "fair value" that I arrived at for the Defender doesn't not increase the ship's cost because of the cannon slot.

And, again, that 27 points is "fair" compared to a PS1 Interceptor, which is almost assuredly overpriced to begin with. If a "fair" price for the Interceptor was 17 points, then the "fair cost" of the Defender would be in the range of 17*2.25^0.5 = 25.5, not 27. But the ship costs 30! Unless it can do something like get a free evade every round, I don't ever see it getting used competitively, regardless of its dial. We'll see though.

Again, the issue here is that the tie fighter is meant to be used in large squads of fairly basic ships, other ships really aren't. Most are meant to either have some for of upgrade or to complement other ships. Comparing apples to apples doesn't work if you're actually comparing if apples or tomatoes make a better pie.

Likewise if the defender was balanced around pimped out named pilots then it is going to lose a slugfest. You claim that epic play will make it harder to avoid all arcs, but it will also make it harder to focus fire and will make it so that it is much easier to use mixed squads with tie fighters as the cannon fodder and defenders and interceptors slipping around killing hwks and transports before their support can turn the tide. Ships have roles, not all those roles are in a direct, pour as much fire onto anything that you can kill capacity.

The low PS values bugs me.

I really hope for a Elite Slot at the PS3 Pilot, so you could go like 3 x Onyx Defender + Veteran Instincts (= PS5) for 99 points ........

I have been thinking about the Defender a great deal and I like it either in a mixed squad as a hard hitter. Could I see a PS1 defender with Stealth and Adv Systems with 5 PS 1 Ties, yep.

Could I see myself flying 3 PS3 Defenders like I would a 3 Firespray list? Yep.

Could a high PS Defender find itself escorted by 2 Ints of whatever flavor? Yep.

I can see lots of options where the Defender will work. I for one think it is a 30 point base value when taken in context with other ships. I will even be so bold as to say that 3 Defenders at PS3 is a real match for 4 Red Squadron X's as I believe it is going to maneuverer like a slippery eel.

I could even see 3 x PS1 Defenders with ion cannons ...

But again ... this is a lousy PS1 fleet!!

So ... WHY??

Even if the Defender has the best dial in the game ... its still moving first and shoot last ...

OK, so let's do the PS3 Defender list, why is it any worse than a PS3 Firespray list?

The real answer is, we don't know as we don't know all the details on the Defender. It might be the new Tie Advanced, but it might also be the new Firespray and those beauties rock....

So far we have 7 pages of speculation.

History in this game tells us that isn't really worth squat.

Firespray was announced, everyone was maligning it. Now it is a go to ship.

HWK was announced, everyone maligned it. It's a great support ship.

The Shuttle, horrible, unplayable piece of junk. Now it's seeing real success.

My point is I am going to buy my 3 Defenders and fly them, then I'll decide if they are crap.

Like you bought 4 Advanced?

Well, of course i'll buy 3 of them, if it makes sense to create a 3 Defender list.

If the PS3 is 32points and has an EPT, then i'll buy 3

Yep bought 4 Advanced and proved they are crap :-)

But wait

... a 3 x PS1 Defender + ion cannon squad could be serious, if the dial bears a white k-turn ...

I think I said this before, but a better comparison for the defenders would be an Imperial Aces three-interceptor build with shield and hull upgrade rather than a TIE swarm.

Depending on whether you use push the limit or not you can get some pretty high pilot skill and 5 hit points per ship. I'll just use one example, two royal guards with PTL and Carnor Jax with PTL, hull+shield on all three. 5 hitpoints each (1 shield 4 hull), PS 6-6-8, and able to use two actions, which could be evade+focus or boost+barrel roll, both of which are options that the Defenders cannot match, and the boost+barrel roll combo could be very effective against a 3-Defender setup that would be limited to PS1 or maybe PS3.

Now we don't know a lot about the high PS defenders or what good combos they might have with other ships/pilots, or how effective a fully kitted out pair of defenders might be, or even the maneuvers on the dial (or why there is an evade token in the blister). It is not fair or accurate to try and compare them so soon, but I do see where people might be feeling a bit skeptical about the base PS1 defender. Personally I am a bit jealous of the E-wing as it seems like a much more interesting toy that can be upgraded in a variety of more interesting ways.

Actually typing all this out has me considering a build like the one I posted above, with the royal guard pilots setup the same, but replace Carnor Jax with the PS3 defender (at 32 points maybe?) plus veteran instincts and an ion cannon. Could be fun, and worth a shot at least.

Actually the PS1 will give it much better utility in some of the Imperial lists. Think about it - you'll be able to move it interchangeably with your AP pilots, who are the staple blocker in the game. You can use a screening force of TIEs to block and draw fire, sit back with a Defender and Ion targets or take pot shots at targets who lost their actions crashing into your Academy Pilots. You can move and shoot in whatever order works best for you.

I suspect it's not an accident that the two generics are the same ps as the two lowest ranked generic TIE pilots, Academy and Obsidian.

Again, the issue here is that the tie fighter is meant to be used in large squads of fairly basic ships, other ships really aren't. Most are meant to either have some for of upgrade or to complement other ships.

Hm, virtually any ship in the game can be used well in either a mixed or pure squad. Only 1 of the 10 non-support ships (bombers) requires spending any additional points on it. Looking at the ships:

• X-wing: The base ship is used competitively in a wide variety of lists, both pure lists and mixed lists. Upgrades are not needed to be competitive.
• Y-wing: Used in several successful competitive lists. Can be used naked, or with an Ion cannon competitively.
• YT-1300: Typically used with upgrades as part of a HSF style list, but the named ships can also be used extremely effectively on their own. Dual naked ORS has been used competitively.
• A-wing: almost never sees successful high level competitive use because it is slightly overcosted.
• B-wing: Same deal as with the X-wing. It can be used naked, or with upgrades.
• HWK: designated as a "support ship", and generally requires a turret weapon to be useful.
• TIE Fighter: same deal as with the X-wing, but at a lower point cost.
• TIE Advanced: almost universally regarded to be overcosted, it is all but retired from the competitive arena. Vader can be marginally useful, but at an extremely high points cost with upgrades, and only because his particular ability is the best in the game.
• Firespray: Can be used competitively in a number of lists, either in a pure or mixed squad. It saw little or no representation at the highest level of Worlds 2013 play, but it is nonetheless a very good ship.
• TIE Interceptor: slightly overcosted ship that hasn't seen much, if any, successful high level competitive use. Upgrades on named pilots / Sabers (PtL) is almost mandatory to offset it's glass cannon "Kill Me First" sign painted on its back.
• TIE Bomber: solid craft that is designed around being an ordinance carrier. Essentially requires upgrades to make it worthwhile, by definition.
• Lambda: designated as a support ship, and generally requires upgrades to be useful. Can be used in a pure squad of Lambdas (3x Buzzsaw Shuttles), or as part of a mixed squad.

So, the only ships that really require upgrades are the HWK-290, the Lambda, and the TIE Bomber. You can't possibly be comparing the TIE Defender to those ships in an attempt to justify its cost? That just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm fine with a ship costing a large number of points, but a core principle of solid game design is that every ship should be balanced at whatever its point cost is. You seem to be arguing for making the ship expensive just for the sake of making it expensive.

You claim that epic play will make it harder to avoid all arcs, but it will also make it harder to focus fire

I believe you have the latter half of that backwards. With more ships on the board, focus fire becomes significantly easier, not harder. If I have 6 ships to shoot with instead of 4, then I am much more likely to be able to take a ship from full health to zero in one round.

I think I said this before, but a better comparison for the defenders would be an Imperial Aces three-interceptor build with shield and hull upgrade rather than a TIE swarm.

Depending on whether you use push the limit or not you can get some pretty high pilot skill and 5 hit points per ship. I'll just use one example, two royal guards with PTL and Carnor Jax with PTL, hull+shield on all three. 5 hitpoints each (1 shield 4 hull), PS 6-6-8, and able to use two actions, which could be evade+focus or boost+barrel roll, both of which are options that the Defenders cannot match, and the boost+barrel roll combo could be very effective against a 3-Defender setup that would be limited to PS1 or maybe PS3.

Yeah, that's why I compared them directly to the base TIE Interceptor first.

It's hard to make comparisons to specific lists, especially when you start talking about PS bid. You're essentially comparing a 6/6/8, 15 hit point Interceptor list against a 3/3/6, 18 hit point Defender list. The Interceptors have about 6 points more invested into the PS bid. The Interceptors also spent a huge amount of points on upgrades (21 without even counting PtL!), which is generally a poor use of points - and yet they still seem to stack up pretty well against the Defenders. If anything, I think this example points to Defenders needing a REALLY good dial and/or freebie type evade ability to be competitive at their current points.

Like you bought 4 Advanced?

Well, of course i'll buy 3 of them, if it makes sense to create a 3 Defender list.

If the PS3 is 32points and has an EPT, then i'll buy 3

Hey wait a minute! I bought 4 Advanced!

I am not arguing that ship's should be expensive just to be expensive, I am arguing that the metric by which you are judging the ships is flawed even if the math is correct. You've already stated in this thread that by your math no ship should be able to consistently beat a swarm of academy ties, and that is clearly untrue.Swarms are good but beatable, easily so with the right tactics. You should compare to the average in any case, if the swarm is better than most by the "math" then it's not fair to judge it by that. It would be like comparing a rookie boxer to Ali, a miner league baseball player to Ruth, perhaps not to that extreme but still I assume a good base metric would be three or four X-wings. A simple pair of assault missiles, still within the hundred point limit for three 30 point apiece defenders, would likely devastate a swarm as well which was mostly why I made my, I thought, perfectly reasonable request on how that math would change things.

I think we are using different nuances in the term "focus fire". I meant that it would be harder to train every gun on one ship, since after all there is a finite amount of space and maneuvering one can use to line up said shots. Not that it is harder to get, say four attacks on a ship with six ships than with four ships. That clearly isn't the case.

Useless speculation until the details and further details are released. When the actual dial is out, and games are played with the actual new maneuver, we will see if the cost is right. The "math" is only part of the game and ignores so much. At best it can tell you about a single very artificial round.

I am arguing that the metric by which you are judging the ships is flawed even if the math is correct.

Providing only one metric would make for a weaker argument. That's why I provided six different perspectives in the OP. Then I added a 7th perspective, the continuous time battle simulation, that shows how efficient a given squad needs to be at forcing non-shots to be equivalent to another squad. To which metric are you referring?

The Lanchester's metric by which I am judging the Defender is the same metric that I use that predicts that the TIE Advanced, TIE Interceptor, and A-wing are all overcosted ships. Not coincidentally, these ships have historically not been used with any great success in high level tournaments.

• ... A squad that will beat a TIE Swarm 80%+ of the time, then no, there is no squad that can do this. However, by this definition, the same could also be said of ANY competitive squad, for example any of the top 16 squads at Worlds 2013.
• ... A squad that will be consistently be competitive with a TIE Swarm, and win around 50% of the time, then there are many pure or mixed squads that can do this. However, the TIE Defenders, as they have been revealed so far, do not appear to be one of the pure squads that could accomplish this. It's possible that one of the named Defenders could be used in a mixed squad to accomplish this, but that's looking unlikely given that A) high PS pilots see little use in competitive play already, and B), you would be spending 36% to 45% of your points on one ship.

We both agree that TIE Swarms are very good when flown by an expert player, but that they can, and certainly have, been beaten consistently with good tactics. To be fair, my initial, and still best, comparison of the TIE Defender is to its much closer cousin, the TIE Interceptor.

Useless speculation until the details and further details are released. When the actual dial is out, and games are played with the actual new maneuver, we will see if the cost is right. The "math" is only part of the game and ignores so much. At best it can tell you about a single very artificial round.

But it's been MONTHS since new ships have come out... that's what we as the X-wing community DO when we get bored: we speculate!

For what it's worth, with "math" and some "useless speculation" I was able to predict, before wave 2 was even released, that the TIE Interceptor and A-wing would very likely not see successful competitive use at the highest levels of play. I didn't make big long detailed posts about it like with the TIE Advanced or TIE Defender, but it seemed pretty obvious when I ran the numbers back then.

Hopefully the Defender dial and evade token turn out to be interesting, and more importantly, add strategic depth. FFG is very good at that.