Nor am I, frankly, and tend to find those that are fond of it incredibly annoying (as well as them likely being historically illiterate "Lost Cause" supporters).  That said, people that want to get up in arms of its use in completely benign things are just as as annoying.  We are, after all, playing a game in a franchise with direct references to Nazi Germany (stormtroopers, the rank of Grand Admiral, genocide, etc) as well as numerous indirect references and allusions (Imperial uniforms are clearly WWII German/SS based, and the Republic/Imperial flag is almost the exact same, with a minor change of the central symbol).  Having a technical painted like a car from a TV show shouldn't be something to get up in arms over.
And sorry for the mini sermon, this isn't the place for such discussions, but the Facebook mob spent most of Wednesday crucifying me for this paint job before the admins turned off commenting.  Hopefully the same won't happen here.  Either way, this is the only post I will make on the subject.  Now back to our regularly scheduled painting.

I drilled mine simply through the top and used some greenstuff to smoothen it out again. you can see hem very slightly but then I will be playing my lasndspeeder with the two figures on the back anyway.
There are more pictures on my blog: https://legion-outpost.blogspot.com/2019/06/x-34-landspeeder-painted.html
 

 

While it is true that absence of use does not constitute evidence of a particular cause, it is true that it is often a reflection of a particular cause.  You are claiming that because it doesn't appear at the highest levels of play, the T-47 hasn't been tested. This seems unlikely, especially considering the amount of personal testimony, blogs/videos, and statistical analysis that all indicate the community has spent a great deal of time trying with the T-47. This seems to imply instead that it is indeed a reflection of the T-47's effectiveness relative to its cost.
The T-47 and its dearth in competitive play seems, to me, to be analogous to unusually short basketball players in the NBA. Short players aren't prevalent at the highest levels of basketball, not because nobody will give them a shot, but because they experience less success in the myriad opportunities they are afforded at the lower levels, so they don't make the cut to the "final round" very often. In a similar fashion, the T-47 has been tried locally by many in run-ups to tournament play, it generally under-performs its competition, and in the end only a few T-47 lists, if any, make the cut.
People were trying it, and it wasn't working out, so they stopped trying to use it when winning actually mattered. Maybe the new pilot will help with that, and maybe it won't, but to keep pretending that it just hasn't been given a fair shake to date seems silly to me. Every person commenting seems to be implying that they have tried it. I know I have, extensively.  I have used it in about half of my games (sometimes even two of them) because I love flying it. It has yet to impress me, it generally hinders me, I don't think it is good at all (particularly due to objective problems), but I fly it at home and with friends because it is fun to use.
I would never fly it if I were planning on attending a tournament.
Now that cover-2 is available to counter DLT-spam I may have to test it some more and see if it is appreciably boosted. Pre cover-2 it was simply not good.

Hey Andy,
I couldn't help but enjoy watching your transition - you started off engaging with D in a positive and genuine way, lamenting the hostile attitude he is copping.
Then you actually tried to communicate with him and slowly degraded more and more and realisation crept in that you are not talking to rational scientific thinker you thought you were.
It's kind of beautiful to see you come to understand the nature of the beast, though at the cost of your own frustration.
I'm sorry for you and greatly amused at the same time.

The T-47?
No, wait--I'm sorry I mentioned... *runs for cover*

I submit that you are conflating "ridiculous" with "reasonable, but not proven."  My premise that the T-47 is bad is not proven in an "innocent until proven guilty" sort of way, but the circumstantial evidence has led me to a reasonable conclusion given the information we currently possess combined with my personal experience.
I claim it is a bad investment in a point-based game because (as I mentioned in my post) I have run it. I have run it a lot.  I can't give you the exact numbers, because I have not kept them for all of my games, but I can tell you that I do much, much better when I do not run it. What would be ridiculous is for me to claim it is good in the face of that evidence and what I see from others.  We don't have systematic data, but I have my personal experience, and until systematic data proves me wrong, it is reasonable to follow my experience.
Furthermore, this has also been the experience of everyone else that I know.  This has also been the experience of almost every person on this forum. Alone, you might dismiss any one of us as an anecdote, and even a few would seem reasonable to discount if you had evidence to the contrary. When you take into account all of the anecdotes, the T-47's absence from top lists, the fact that it can't break into a meta that doesn't even favor running its true counter (heavier impact and ion weapons), its statistical inferiority on per-point metrics, its failure at the Las Vegas Open and in Invader League, etc...
You can claim the evidence is anecdotal. I look at it all alongside my personal experiences with it and conclude that the evidence points overwhelmingly toward a specific conclusion. It is bad. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach based on all of the above evidence, even if it has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I suspect if a statistical analysis was possible at this stage it would confirm my opinion. It seems much more illogical from my standpoint to suppose that if we were able to suddenly tabulate all early T-47 games we would discover that everything I mentioned above got it completely wrong, as did my personal experience.
Do you, by the way, have any data of systematic use that suggests they are in a great spot as you claim them to be?  I suspect you do not, but as I love using the T-47 and love its model, I welcome any information regarding lists that show its effectiveness if they are out there.

The T-47?
No, wait--I'm sorry I mentioned... *runs for cover*

The T-47?
No, wait--I'm sorry I mentioned... *runs for cover*

The T-47?
No, wait--I'm sorry I mentioned... *runs for cover*

A look at data from the Round Robin stage of TTS Invader League for Star Wars: Legion, including cross-faction match breakdown and a look at unit mix.   https://swlegionodds.com/2019/05/20/invader-league-season-3-round-robin-data-wrap-and-elims-lists-preview/

@Irokenics
Your first mistake was posting on a T-47 thread; a mistake everyone here is guilty of making.
Your second mistake was trying to get a straight answer to a simple question from Derrault.

Why am I not surprised that the goalposts moved?

I agree with you that no inference can be drawn from a lack of data alone.  I also agree with you that anecdotes alone are not enough. In fact, those two factors alone are not significant if we have no other evidence.
We do have some data, though. As I mentioned, it is terrible from a per-point analysis of cost-effectiveness. It has done extremely poorly in tournaments and league play every time it has been taken. I would like more data, I really would. Clearly you would as well. However, you are completely ignoring the data we have. What we do have indicates that it has been very bad in competitive play, and that as you move "up" in tournament play it appears less and less as the tournaments get more competitive and skilled.  That is indisputable. The sample size is small, but it is very, very bad for the T-47.
Alone, a small sample size like this is negligible.  What I am suggesting is that anecdotes, personal experience, the analysis of the unit itself, and the existing data (though limited), all stack up to exactly what we would expect: it doesn't get played at serious tournaments.
You are free to wonder why, as we have not met your criteria for scientific observation. I, however, suspect I know why.
I don't need a scientific study to tell me that poop stinks.

I submit that you are conflating "ridiculous" with "reasonable, but not proven."  My premise that the T-47 is bad is not proven in an "innocent until proven guilty" sort of way, but the circumstantial evidence has led me to a reasonable conclusion given the information we currently possess combined with my personal experience.
I claim it is a bad investment in a point-based game because (as I mentioned in my post) I have run it. I have run it a lot.  I can't give you the exact numbers, because I have not kept them for all of my games, but I can tell you that I do much, much better when I do not run it. What would be ridiculous is for me to claim it is good in the face of that evidence and what I see from others.  We don't have systematic data, but I have my personal experience, and until systematic data proves me wrong, it is reasonable to follow my experience.
Furthermore, this has also been the experience of everyone else that I know.  This has also been the experience of almost every person on this forum. Alone, you might dismiss any one of us as an anecdote, and even a few would seem reasonable to discount if you had evidence to the contrary. When you take into account all of the anecdotes, the T-47's absence from top lists, the fact that it can't break into a meta that doesn't even favor running its true counter (heavier impact and ion weapons), its statistical inferiority on per-point metrics, its failure at the Las Vegas Open and in Invader League, etc...
You can claim the evidence is anecdotal. I look at it all alongside my personal experiences with it and conclude that the evidence points overwhelmingly toward a specific conclusion. It is bad. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach based on all of the above evidence, even if it has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I suspect if a statistical analysis was possible at this stage it would confirm my opinion. It seems much more illogical from my standpoint to suppose that if we were able to suddenly tabulate all early T-47 games we would discover that everything I mentioned above got it completely wrong, as did my personal experience.
Do you, by the way, have any data of systematic use that suggests they are in a great spot as you claim them to be?  I suspect you do not, but as I love using the T-47 and love its model, I welcome any information regarding lists that show its effectiveness if they are out there.

I submit that you are conflating "ridiculous" with "reasonable, but not proven."  My premise that the T-47 is bad is not proven in an "innocent until proven guilty" sort of way, but the circumstantial evidence has led me to a reasonable conclusion given the information we currently possess combined with my personal experience.
I claim it is a bad investment in a point-based game because (as I mentioned in my post) I have run it. I have run it a lot.  I can't give you the exact numbers, because I have not kept them for all of my games, but I can tell you that I do much, much better when I do not run it. What would be ridiculous is for me to claim it is good in the face of that evidence and what I see from others.  We don't have systematic data, but I have my personal experience, and until systematic data proves me wrong, it is reasonable to follow my experience.
Furthermore, this has also been the experience of everyone else that I know.  This has also been the experience of almost every person on this forum. Alone, you might dismiss any one of us as an anecdote, and even a few would seem reasonable to discount if you had evidence to the contrary. When you take into account all of the anecdotes, the T-47's absence from top lists, the fact that it can't break into a meta that doesn't even favor running its true counter (heavier impact and ion weapons), its statistical inferiority on per-point metrics, its failure at the Las Vegas Open and in Invader League, etc...
You can claim the evidence is anecdotal. I look at it all alongside my personal experiences with it and conclude that the evidence points overwhelmingly toward a specific conclusion. It is bad. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach based on all of the above evidence, even if it has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I suspect if a statistical analysis was possible at this stage it would confirm my opinion. It seems much more illogical from my standpoint to suppose that if we were able to suddenly tabulate all early T-47 games we would discover that everything I mentioned above got it completely wrong, as did my personal experience.
Do you, by the way, have any data of systematic use that suggests they are in a great spot as you claim them to be?  I suspect you do not, but as I love using the T-47 and love its model, I welcome any information regarding lists that show its effectiveness if they are out there.

The answer to your question was apparently no Jed

While it is true that absence of use does not constitute evidence of a particular cause, it is true that it is often a reflection of a particular cause.  You are claiming that because it doesn't appear at the highest levels of play, the T-47 hasn't been tested. This seems unlikely, especially considering the amount of personal testimony, blogs/videos, and statistical analysis that all indicate the community has spent a great deal of time trying with the T-47. This seems to imply instead that it is indeed a reflection of the T-47's effectiveness relative to its cost.
The T-47 and its dearth in competitive play seems, to me, to be analogous to unusually short basketball players in the NBA. Short players aren't prevalent at the highest levels of basketball, not because nobody will give them a shot, but because they experience less success in the myriad opportunities they are afforded at the lower levels, so they don't make the cut to the "final round" very often. In a similar fashion, the T-47 has been tried locally by many in run-ups to tournament play, it generally under-performs its competition, and in the end only a few T-47 lists, if any, make the cut.
People were trying it, and it wasn't working out, so they stopped trying to use it when winning actually mattered. Maybe the new pilot will help with that, and maybe it won't, but to keep pretending that it just hasn't been given a fair shake to date seems silly to me. Every person commenting seems to be implying that they have tried it. I know I have, extensively.  I have used it in about half of my games (sometimes even two of them) because I love flying it. It has yet to impress me, it generally hinders me, I don't think it is good at all (particularly due to objective problems), but I fly it at home and with friends because it is fun to use.
I would never fly it if I were planning on attending a tournament.
Now that cover-2 is available to counter DLT-spam I may have to test it some more and see if it is appreciably boosted. Pre cover-2 it was simply not good.

I submit that you are conflating "ridiculous" with "reasonable, but not proven."  My premise that the T-47 is bad is not proven in an "innocent until proven guilty" sort of way, but the circumstantial evidence has led me to a reasonable conclusion given the information we currently possess combined with my personal experience.
I claim it is a bad investment in a point-based game because (as I mentioned in my post) I have run it. I have run it a lot.  I can't give you the exact numbers, because I have not kept them for all of my games, but I can tell you that I do much, much better when I do not run it. What would be ridiculous is for me to claim it is good in the face of that evidence and what I see from others.  We don't have systematic data, but I have my personal experience, and until systematic data proves me wrong, it is reasonable to follow my experience.
Furthermore, this has also been the experience of everyone else that I know.  This has also been the experience of almost every person on this forum. Alone, you might dismiss any one of us as an anecdote, and even a few would seem reasonable to discount if you had evidence to the contrary. When you take into account all of the anecdotes, the T-47's absence from top lists, the fact that it can't break into a meta that doesn't even favor running its true counter (heavier impact and ion weapons), its statistical inferiority on per-point metrics, its failure at the Las Vegas Open and in Invader League, etc...
You can claim the evidence is anecdotal. I look at it all alongside my personal experiences with it and conclude that the evidence points overwhelmingly toward a specific conclusion. It is bad. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach based on all of the above evidence, even if it has not been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. I suspect if a statistical analysis was possible at this stage it would confirm my opinion. It seems much more illogical from my standpoint to suppose that if we were able to suddenly tabulate all early T-47 games we would discover that everything I mentioned above got it completely wrong, as did my personal experience.
Do you, by the way, have any data of systematic use that suggests they are in a great spot as you claim them to be?  I suspect you do not, but as I love using the T-47 and love its model, I welcome any information regarding lists that show its effectiveness if they are out there.

You want to make the T-47 relevant? Give it a target it's uniquely suited for!

Maybe the AT-RT was cheating! Serves the filthy ******* right!

Yes, but the Invader ones do. Many players have ran T-47s with none of those making it into the single eliminations. You might skip right over it, but the non-FFG tournaments count because those are the test beds for official ones. People run stuff there, realize there are better options, and op to not use them. 
 
Sure, but one of the points I made above is that I’ve won games simply because my opponent chose to bring the T-47. Ive also lost games to the same people when they don’t - which is probably why I qualified for worlds. Myself and many others spent time playing against and with every option. 

Assuming an aim and cover two on the target, Imperial snipers actually ARE a bit better, though the difference is slight. The table below is from Never Tell Me the Odds, and details how imps with an aim are slightly (about 3%) more accurate than their rebel counterparts, but their higher variance means they are also ever-so-slightly more likely to whiff completely on a target out of cover.
 
DLT-19x on the left, DH-447 on the right.

As others have pointed out, however, any player worth their salt who has run sniper teams before will never give you a clean shot at both snipers in one activation. Corner hiding one of the snipers is standard play in every match I have ever seen, meaning you can never kill more than one man from the team in a single activation. It isn't the cover that is relevant here, but the line of sight.
You can't hit what you can't see, and that dang second sniper never seems to quite poke his head out!

I agree completely that the difference is nearly negligible. I was simply noting that in cover two and with an aim (the most common sniping conditions) Imperials do come out slightly ahead, so that may be where people are getting it. 

Assuming an aim and cover two on the target, Imperial snipers actually ARE a bit better, though the difference is slight. The table below is from Never Tell Me the Odds, and details how imps with an aim are slightly (about 3%) more accurate than their rebel counterparts, but their higher variance means they are also ever-so-slightly more likely to whiff completely on a target out of cover.
 
DLT-19x on the left, DH-447 on the right.