Winner
-
Content Count
71 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Winner
-
-
Predictable doesn't mean much when you're PS 8 and have a barrel roll. Or when you establish range control with an HLC. Or when your opponent has been Ioned and can't do much about it. Or when you just fly it with some skill and aren't as predictable as the ship seems to be on paper. Funny, I hear so many people decry it for being predictable and easy to focus down, but for all that I've yet to have someone fly against me who was able to easily predict where I would be, or bring the full brunt of their squad to bare upon it...
So your argument is because you fly it amazingly, it's not predictable?
-
I've been reading (and contributing to) this forum for a while now, and have lapped up the discussions on 'the meta', and MajorJuggler's reports.
However, I'm not actually experienced this Phantom vs. Falcon high that we're all supposed to be on in my local scene. In the past few months, I've played just two games in which there was a Phantom, and two games that had a Falcon (the games at home after I just got my Falcon notwithstanding). One of these games had both - so three games in total, and I was flying the Falcon in response to the Phantom because I heard that that was the thing to do. (It was; I slaughtered the Phantom.)
But, in my local scene I'm seeing a lot of Z-95s and E-Wings, and a few Defenders and Phantoms, but it's not the Phantom vs. Falcon craze that everyone is talking about.
So, do I just live in a peculiar place, or is this 'meta' that everyone speaks of just something that is salient at the highest levels?
There's a saying:
When in rome, do as the romans do.
If you are playing X-Wing with your group, play against the players, not the game. If you know that Bob likes to play swarm, then account for it. If Larry is really into playing turrets on ships, expect it. I mean you wouldn't bring a winter jacket if you went on vacation to the Amazons, why would you bring ships that act as meta for the tournament scene when you aren't playing in the tournament scene?
-
They would always spend it, unless they have 2 or more tokens (like 1 focus and 1 evade) and would rather not spend it as they want to hold onto at least 1 token for a later attack.
UnfairBanana reacted to this -
I really want to like Rexler - but IMHO - he is severally limited in two very important areas:
First, the Defender dial is just a bummer, the white 4K move notwithstanding. Basically, only having straight green maneuvers makes stress a huge problem. Worse, 1 and 2 sharp turns are red. This makes any Defender painfully predictable - basically you are limited to moving in a straight line (to include that white K), a bank or the 3 hard turn.
Second, there is no easy way to do more than one action a turn - which is the only realistic way to get Rexler's awesome ability to trigger. I have tried PTL with x2 BSP equipped with Wingman to shed the stress for him, but I think this comes up short - and it certainly does not help with the predictability.
For now, here is what I am thinking:
Rexler + HLC, Shield and VI for 49 points
Colonel Jendon + HLC, Engine, ST 321, Sensor Jammer, Weapons Engineer, Fleet Officer (not yet released) for 50 points
It does give you options, a way to give Rexler either a TL at R1 or a FT at R1 or 2. It also made for a nice initial attack - both ships perform short maneuvers for T1 and end up well out of range with a TL each, then for T2 the Shuttle assigns Rexler a FT and Rexler performs a Focus Action, so Rexler can attack with HLC at PS10 with a FT and TL to modify and still have a FT to trigger his ability. The Shuttle then follows at PS6 with a HLC with a TL to modify.
It worked okay last night, but I think Fleet Officer will most likely work better with the Decimator. Also, it looks like there is a Decimator at PS8 with EPT for 46 points... + VI and FO would be 50... I would lose the ability to pass TLs but presumably have an easier time passing FTs, as the Decimator's dial will be better than the Shuttle's (the Decimator has a spoiled green 2 bank). Also, having the support ship also shoot at PS10 (with 360 arc) does not hurt - even if it is with one less red die.
Thoughts?
What you have said in the first paragraph many of us have thought over and over and have seen on the battlefield.
It shouldn't work on paper. It doesn't work in the field.
It's not a matter of a Tie Defender not killing anything, because it can and should. It's not a matter that it doesn't have high survivability. It's that for the point cost and the flexibility of manuever choices it's really not an economical nor wise choice.
To me it's very similar to the Tie Advanced:
I want to like it, but it's just not worth it in a competitive environment.
If you are playing casually who cares. But most players want to win, so they want to play what could be competitive. This ship has less competitive value than most others.
It will always stick out, but that's because of the stat line.
Don't confuse a good stat line with a good ship.
Anyhow, I'd say Yorr is probably the best choice as he can steal stress and also have a Fleet Officer give you more options!
-
Omicron Group Pilot — Lambda-Class Shuttle 21 Fire-Control System 2 Heavy Laser Cannon 7 Darth Vader 3 Gunner 5
Captain Yorr — Lambda-Class Shuttle 24 Fire-Control System 2 Heavy Laser Cannon 7 Tactician 2 Gunner 5Captain Jonus — TIE Bomber
-
It depends on the person's definition of "broken".
To me Echo is very strong because of the 4 attack dice.
I think it can be mitigated with high PS and turrets! -
I would love to see an Avenger print run. Having the Tie Advanced x1 is cool and all, but I would bet there would be less complaining on the Tie Advanced if an Avenger came out.
And FFG would also get my $$$.
I don't see why this couldn't just be an Advanced with a Boost action, a newer, cooler model, and a better upgrade bar.
It would make sense to me at least. Then cost it appropriately.
-
Congrats!
I'm glad you vindicated the Defender for yourself.
However, something indicates to me that none of the vindication was necessary and that you already thought the Defender was viable enough to play it in the first place.
In the meantime, the rest of us require more proof that the Defender is 'vindicated' than your post. -
I think FFG should launch a new blister with Tie Avengers (remodeled). This will also allow for higher sales.
*Add boost (the Tie Avenger was faster than any other TIE version of ship save perhaps the original Defender x7)
Boost also allows the Proton Rockets to be more viable with the Avenger since you can boost into Range 1.*Lower point cost (being careful not to lower by too much)
*Add unique titles, upgrades and pilots that are intriguing
I'd totally buy multiples. -
Is this ship sub-par? Why?
Will anything be done to make the ship more appealing?
J
1 word to describe my feelings towards the Tie-Advanced:
Nope
If you play Darth Vader, (in the Tie Advanced x1) then that's acceptable, but normal Tie Advanced? Nope.
You know, if FFG released a new model for the Tie Avenger, and added a boost action and reduced the cost, I'd be absolutely down with that.
-
Do not put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid.But just wandering in and calling people stupid is noise, and frankly we have enough of that around here. Don't be noise.(*Probably.)
From Merriam-Webster:
1Stupid: not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things.
So yes, saying someone is not smart is the same as calling them stupid.
I never said anyone is or was 'not smart'.
What little credibility Expat had faded away with this statement. It is a logically fallacy to declare that saying something is smart is saying the same as the other options are not smart. Therefore everyone is stupid?
It just seems smart to me to choose to not play the Defender in a competitive list.
-
Do not put words in my mouth. I never called anyone stupid.But just wandering in and calling people stupid is noise, and frankly we have enough of that around here. Don't be noise.(*Probably.)
-
A smart player wouldn't play this ship.Just because something should go down fast, doesn't mean it will. I've been playing Defender lists like crazy since Imdaar, and the thing has almost never let me down. On paper, it's easy to say "oh well you just focus him down," but that overlooks a lot of things:
1. Deployment- Rexler pops on the table at PS 8, after much of the board for most lists has been established. A smart player will deploy him where he can utilize his high speed maneuvers early to get into a good flanking position, even if it takes him a round later than the rest of the squad to fire.
2. Asteroids- Thanks to number 1, a smart player can also position him in a spot that forces the rest of the opponent's squad to be drawn through asteroid fields in order to reach him.
-
Well, I think this thread is done.
Clearly from all the posts the Defender is competitive and has no issues.
Just check all of its' top 8 placings..
-
Everything is about you? I thought we were posting about how the Defender is underpowered or just fine.I would hope no one disputes that, Red Castle.
We all have our own opinions.
I just wanted to point out that saying the Defender is perfectly fine because it has been playtested is a very biased statement.
Not only are we not aware of the process of playtesting, but we know from past experience that even if playtesting and design were synchronized that there are ships that don't get played very often (A-Wings and Tie Advanceds). This is evidence to me that the process is imperfect.
I enjoy most of the ships, but again, using the excuse that I should rely on playtesting and that they know what they are doing has little bearance on the usability of the Defender within the X-Wing community.
Although for that matter, only time will tell if even this thread has any bearance at all on the future of the Defender.
Okay, this is getting ridiculous.
And if you ask me, I still think that FFG way overrated the white K-turn. In fear of making the ship too powerful, FFG sliced every other aspect of the ship due to an ability that will truly provide an advantage... how many times? Once? maybe 2 times per entire battle?
I'm unsure if this is true or not, but I feel like the Defender must have been overlooked in playtesting. My guess is this was the result of needing to over-playtest the new "cloaking" mechanic on the Phantom.
The Defender is fine, it's the pilots which imo suck terribly, this ship needed a noname pilot with an EPT slot, but instead got 2 pilots with abilities which have certain conditions like a lot of Empire pilots have. FFG obviously hasn't learned from some past mistakes.
That's why I believe people are so upset with the dial... Many drawbacks to pay for an experimental advantage.
Then I write:
Right or wrong, FFG consider that the Defender is correctly priced.
Then continue with:
Concerning the only straight green, I would also have loved it if they at least gave one green bank turn option. But they didn't. And they playtested the ship. Do you really think that all the playtesters didn't see this flaw? They didn't gave it for a reason. Maybe, just maybe, allowing this ship to clear stress easily made it too strong. Maybe, giving it 2 actions with PtL and the Boost possibilty made it too strong in certain case. Being able to barrel roll after a k-turn is nice, being able to barrel roll and boost after a k-turn any turn you want... I think would have created a couple of amusing thread. So, from a game design, you have to limit the possibilty. You can do it, but for a price; Take a wingman or Yorr and give PtL to the Defender and Boost.
To which, we replied to me with:
No, I'm sure they saw the flaw clearly. What I think is that they preferred to be over-cautious and go with it anyways.
The reason probably was that they a little afraid on how a white K-Turn would affect the meta. Unfortunately, both for the players and devs, it seems that the impact will be negligible... By lack of usage of the ship, mainly.
And I replied with:
You really don't give the playtesters a lot of credit, do you?
Not only they decided to put a ship on the market even though it has a flaw that, acording to some, make the ship unplayable (I personally don't think so), but they also couldn't predict how the white k-turn, that they've been playtesting for months, would affect the game. So they decided to overprice the ship just in case, while it looks like it took the community less than a month to figure it out. What are they hiring?
And you came in saying that developpers has the last word, that even if playtester saw the flaw, maybe the developper didn't gave a **** and:
I'm also one to believe that for the timeline they focused more intently on a ship that caused new rules to come out (Cloak/ Decloak) as an imbalance on cloaking has a much larger chance of breaking the game than some ship with 3s.
To ensure that there's no imbalance would be my priority if I was a designer or playtester.
Yet, of all these quotes, I'm the one you tag as making a very biased statement? Yeah, of course. Whatever. If you can't tell that I'm just giving my opinion and not stating fact, there is really nothing I can say to you.
Playtesters is part of the developing team so you could just switch, in my quotes, the word playtester with FFG. I trust that FFG would have listened to their playtesters if they said that the ship was unplayable or cost too high. And just to be sure, I might be wrong, this is just my opinion. I'm not making any biased statement.
But just for you, I'll point it out again:
We, the community, are not made aware of FFG's internal processes.
It's fine to have complete faith in FFG and to believe that they always release ships with perfect balance and fairness.
But you don't know or can't tell us that the playtesters had complete control of the final product.
That's like saying a movie will be perfect because it has good actors. There might be so many more actors involved in the process.
-
I would hope no one disputes that, Red Castle.
We all have our own opinions.
I just wanted to point out that saying the Defender is perfectly fine because it has been playtested is a very biased statement.
Not only are we not aware of the process of playtesting, but we know from past experience that even if playtesting and design were synchronized that there are ships that don't get played very often (A-Wings and Tie Advanceds). This is evidence to me that the process is imperfect.
I enjoy most of the ships, but again, using the excuse that I should rely on playtesting and that they know what they are doing has little bearance on the usability of the Defender within the X-Wing community.
Although for that matter, only time will tell if even this thread has any bearance at all on the future of the Defender. -
It's like the game was designed and play-tested or something...A-Wings and Tie Advanceds beg to disagree.
Except when you seemed to blame the play testers and designers here...
That's my point. You very clearly point out that the game was play tested.
Pushing the assumption that it's playtested is pushing that there's nothing wrong on the bounds that it's playtested.
My statement has no bearance on playtesters, but on FINAL PRODUCTS.
You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to
-
I do believe this game has more balance than most games I've played, but that doesn't mean that timetables, fear and office politics don't affect them.
If there's one ship they had to playtest and make sure it doesn't screw up the game it's the Phantom. The Phantom has new rules associated with it that no other ship has. Who knows how many different iterations of cloak they had to playtest and come back with: this is way too good or way too bad.
The point is that there have been statements made that the playtesters made the ships this way or that way (see Red Castle above) when I doubt that we even know the process or what's involved.
In the same way, saying that I don't give the playtesters credit is false.
If a ship is pushed out, yet you don't know how it's done, then how can it be the playtesters fault if you don't even know if it's them that finalized it?
It seems like many of you are assuming on the role of the playtesters and posting blanket statements defensively as a viable reason for the way the Defender was released. That's how I feel about it anyway. -
This game is tied to the story. Ships are modeled to spec to match what they look like in the lore.
Their stats also reflect how they should perform in the lore.The Defender does not do that.
Nicely timed!
Concerning the only straight green, I would also have loved it if they at least gave one green bank turn option. But they didn't. And they playtested the ship. Do you really think that all the playtesters didn't see this flaw? They didn't gave it for a reason.
No, I'm sure they saw the flaw clearly. What I think is that they preferred to be over-cautious and go with it anyways.
The reason probably was that they a little afraid on how a white K-Turn would affect the meta. Unfortunately, both for the players and devs, it seems that the impact will be negligible... By lack of usage of the ship, mainly.
The next regionals>nationals>world will be the true Defender's acid test. We'll see if it really gets a hold in the meta or if it ends sharing hangar with the Advanced.
You really don't give the playtesters a lot of credit, do you?
Not only they decided to put a ship on the market even though it has a flaw that, acording to some, make the ship unplayable (I personally don't think so), but they also couldn't predict how the white k-turn, that they've been playtesting for months, would affect the game. So they decided to overprice the ship just in case, while it looks like it took the community less than a month to figure it out. What are they hiring?
It's definitely not a ship for everyone, just like the Lambda. Some persons love that ship and make it work, and it can be nasty. Others, like me, don't really like how it fly and prefer to take something else instead. It doesn't mean the ship is bad just because it doesn't click with my playstyle. Maybe the Defender is just not for you.
How transparent is the playtesting process?
Do we know how they manage updates? Do the PTs have complete control of the final product? Is it just input?
Who makes the call?
I think your assuming that the PlayTesters have complete control of the final product. I don't believe that's the case.
Designer designs, Playtesters test.
Just because a ship was playtested doesn't mean we see any of the process, or know whose call it was for the final build. So assuming that it has to be all playtesters is just an assumption unless there's an open door posted somewhere on the process for this wave.
So yeah, I do believe that the playtesters could've said there's an issue with it, but if the chain of command errs on the side of caution then yeah, the Defender could have been output in this way.
I'm also one to believe that for the timeline they focused more intently on a ship that caused new rules to come out (Cloak/ Decloak) as an imbalance on cloaking has a much larger chance of breaking the game than some ship with 3s.
To ensure that there's no imbalance would be my priority if I was a designer or playtester.
-
And by definition, an advantage should be something that puts you over something else. It's like saying: "Here, we'll give you an extra pair of arms, but in exchange, we'll cut your legs." Then, there's no advantage at all... you'll end up with the same number of appendages as everyone else... only you move awkwardly. Something similar can be said from the Defender's dial. Yes, it has an advantage no one else has... but so many other disadvantages, than in the end, it has no advantage at all... It only moves awkwardly.LOL, this is hilarious. I do like the analogy.
-
It's like the game was designed and play-tested or something...A-Wings and Tie Advanceds beg to disagree.
-
I don't see how some people are saying that the tech specs of the Defender don't match their expectations, when it is technically the most advanced small fighter. All threes. Why is this bad? How is this "a disappointment"?
I will speak for myself when I say:
Dial & Lack of Boost Action
I also read some posts that are disappointed in the lack of a Elite Pilot upgrade for a standard pilot.
For the rest of you:
What if Darth Vader's official FFG ship was bright orange?
Functionally it's the same ship. But it's orange. It doesn't affect game play, it doesn't affect tournament results.
And yet it's orange.
This game is tied to the story. Ships are modeled to spec to match what they look like in the lore.
Their stats also reflect how they should perform in the lore.
The Defender does not do that.
The Defender does not manuever as it should.
"Oh but it's got a white k-turn!"
It also can't turn at speed 1 or 2 and peform an action until on a later turn it goes straight.
A Tie Fighter, a less capable ship, can hard 1 and focus. Yet the Defender is such a clunky ship that it can't hard 1 and take an action? Shenanigans.
-
Oh cool. Thanks for the link!
-
Both the original stats and the revised XWA stats are listed in the Wookieepedia entry near the end of the article:
Defender stats from Tie Fighter PC Game
155 MGLT
175 DPF
Defender stats from X-Wing Alliance PC Game
144 MGLT
110 DPF
Tie Fighter stats?
100 MGLT
100 DPF
Either Defender 'version' should still out-class the Tie Fighter on speed and turn radius.
Defender, Vindicated.
in X-Wing
Posted