My opinion is that the evade action would give it a more reliable source of mitigating damage. And having an evade action opens up the opportunity to get both a focus and evade with PTL or a support ship, which is indisputably better than either action by itself.
I apologize for distorting your point, and thanks for the correction. I do maintain, however, that it's open to question whether evade is more reliable than focus in practice, in this context.
But I'm not sure I follow your reasoning or why my scope is too narrow. Either token is one-use-only, so it only matters in the shot that you use to defend it from...
So, in terms of concentrated fire, you're going to defend yourself from multiple attacks, but you can only burn the focus/evade once. The more you can blunt the earlier attacks, the longer you keep your shields, and the less danger you face from critical hits. So, in that respect, your dilemma is about how lucky you feel and how you might get that double-eyeball in a future roll. But once you've already rolled the green dice for the first roll, then the probabilities on the second roll are the same as on the first roll, and you might as well prefer certain for uncertain.
But maybe I misunderstand your point. Could you please clarify what you mean?
When I take an action I typically consider the round, rather than the individual attacks. So what I mean is that--with 3 Agility--the chance I'll be locked out of using focus is actually similar to oreven lower than the chance that I'll be able to use it to generate 2+ evades.*
Or, to put it another way, the evade action is like making a personal rule in blackjack that you'll never hit on a 12 or more because you could go bust. It's true
, but it doesn't optimize your results over the long term.
(*Of course if it's heads-up, end-game play those numbers converge with the likelihood for a single attack, and there evade is