Nailed it.

Instead of another clickbait, how about titling your post "Complaint About Raider Delay" or something? It's not terribly hard, and it helps others know what your post is about without having to look first.

Most new ship and nerf ideas are doubleplusungood. This, however, is doubleplusgood.

XWing 2.0 is already going to suck. I'm waiting for version 3.0.

Can we stop click baiting? Just put a succinct summary of your post in the subject line. Give it a try. You might find it's easy and more people respond to your post. Yes, I realize this post hypocritically does the very thing I'm criticizing. I did so for effect.

Where's the obligatory article? They even got me expecting one.

Absolutes are never always true.

Fortunately, your job at FFG isn't on the line. Don't despair.

Make ordnance its own phase before the attack phase. <Mic drop>

Damage cards like the hypothetical Comms Failure would effect very few possible ships. The odds of drawing a crit that actually affects your ship diminishes. It's pointless.

Eg: There's a new damage deck card. It's in the T-70 expansion. I don't buy the T-70 expansion. You do. Not every damage deck is identical.

1) Then not every deck would be identical. 2) If you wanted a card to dilute your damage deck because it didn't apply to your list, you'd add it. If it was worse than most cards in the standard deck, you'd forgo it. Not a good idea, sorry.

Actually, it's not: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/131851-is-it-time-for-a-new-damage-deck/ https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/141696-what-do-you-guys-think-of-new-damage-cards/ https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/122642-new-damage-deck/ https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/109163-is-the-damage-deck-outdated/ https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/102341-is-it-time-to-update-the-core-damage-deck/ https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/94784-challenge-building-a-new-damage-deck-for-missiles-and-proton-torpedoes/ We've gone 'round and 'round this so many times it's boring.

For every new type of crit you add, you make it and all others more rare and therefore less applicable. The current deck applies to most lists most of the time, and could apply to all lists with a minor rules errata. Forcing tournament players to purchase another product is a poor business idea. Having two types of damage decks to choose from is even worse.

Ditto.

With the Punisher just announced, probably.

Relative durability is meta-dependent (also addressed), so when there are lots of attack dice flying around, the low-agility high hull ships do better relative to high agility low hit point ships. What do you mean by "meta dependent"? Lots of little attacks (ie. swarm heavy meta) = high agility ships do better, high health ships do worse. Small number of big attacks (ie. two-ship heavy meta) = high health ships do better, high agility ships do worse. In that case it's irrelevant to what I want to look at. I only care about the defense values of the X- and B-Wing and their health. The assumption in the calculations I wish to perform is that neither will ever fire a shot against their 2- or 3-attack foes.

Relative durability is meta-dependent (also addressed), so when there are lots of attack dice flying around, the low-agility high hull ships do better relative to high agility low hit point ships. What do you mean by "meta dependent"?

I haven't been following this argument too closely, so I could be wrong here but....I believe the post to which you are referring was his reply to your question of "why isn't it just a straight 3/8 chance" or something to that effect. He posted the example with 2 attack dice to show how the calculation was more complex than you were suggesting, with the implication that the full calculation involved doing the same thing (that he did with the 2 dice without focus attack) with every possible permutation possible in the game and then synthesizing all this results. That's what I was referring to. I enjoyed learning why a straight 3/8 chance doesn't apply, but it wasn't apparent to me that his example was anything more than a comparison against a 2-attack ship with no modifiers. Edit: It did raise this issue that mathematical assumptions matter. Edit 2: The reason that the straight 3/8 chance doesn't apply is because the X-Wing wastes green dice, but by my calculations the B-Wing wastes more against 2-attack ships. That was never addressed. I suspect that disparity in the X-Wing's favor grows when you consider 3-attack ships and/or focus for defense. I think I can prove it with math many people can understand and verify.

That said, I'm not exactly sure where you were going with your point? It seemed like a general jab at MathWing, I was trying to point out that it's fundamentally got more in common with Newtonian physics than statistical analysis. Maybe you just meant that we can't tell anything from tournament results - not sure. I haven't looked at MathWing, but if there are assumptions (how could there not be?), then they would affect the result. The specific example I'm curious about is how a single X-Wing and a single B-Wing compare in survivability. Your initial comparison of their survivability used the assumption against a 2-attack ship with no modifiers. Different assumptions (3-attack ship or focus for defense) produce different results. I think in my spare time I might be able to compute this, using napkin math as was insulted earlier. I'm curious to see myself how the two ships compare given various assumptions.

"You can divide infinity an infinite number of times, and the resulting pieces will still be infinitely large. But if you divide a non-infinite number an infinite number of times the resulting pieces are non-infinitely small. Since they are non-infinitely small, but there are an infinite number of them, if you add them back together, their sum is infinite. This implies any number is, in fact, infinite.” No, numbers don't lie. Statisticians do it all the time though; it comes with the job. Except infinity is a limit, not an actual number. Common mistake. If it was we could do things like this: 1 + Infinity = Infinity 1 + 1 + Infinity = Infinity 2 + Infinity = Infinity Therefore 1 + Infinity = Infinity = 2 + Infinity Subtract Infinity from all sides and..... 1 = 2 Yeah!!! Oh wait. Did you hear the story of the babel fish? More fundamentally, I think z0m4d doesn't understand the original quote about statistics. His example has nothing to do with statistics. Newtonian physics is defined by the fundamental equations of motion, and various laws like F=ma. MathWing works by differential equations and probabilistic calculations Tournament results can be analyzed at the meta level by looking at summary of results One of these three uses statistics, and it is not either of the first two. What are you talking about? My only post above was in response to: "There's, there's **** lies and then there's statistics." The questions you ask (and more importantly, don't ask), the data you choose to use and the manner you analyze it can produce different results. I wasn't part of the infinity discussion.

Your experience is confirmation bias. You believe the extra green die doesn't matter. You believe green dice fail. You discount and forget every time they roll exceedingly well and remember and blame them for every time they fail.

Numbers don't lie, but they'll only answer exactly what you ask them, and that's why the question (which formulas and why) becomes important. For instance, how the X-Wing compares to the B-Wing differs depending on if you match them against a 2-attack ship or a 3-attack ship, or if they get to use a focus for defense or not. They assumptions you apply can skew the data.

Trollish? Which posts, exactly?