zero9300
-
Content Count
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by zero9300
-
-
Also note that you could argue that the dial coefficient would be different if you had a HLC vs primaries. I.e. you want to be able to slow-roll.
Well, the scyk is missing the 1 forwards, but 5-kturn option and other slower movement options (has both 1-hards and 1-banks) seem to suit being at range. At the very least, I think that the dial coefficient shouldn't be lower than it currently is.
-
For adding the title, I use 1.1 as the cannon coefficient, making the new non-joust-coefficient 1.1781.
The M3-A title is unique (not in the game sense) in the sense that if you take the title you know that you will be filling it with a cannon. So you don't need to add a general utility coefficient for the cannon, you can directly analyze the jousting numbers with whatever cannon you opt to install.
If there ever were an explanation for why these ships need a cannon, it is this right here. Every ship is within a point of the calculated value or above. Tansarii point veteran and A'shera inch their way above the spacer this time around, but all are good value depending on how much you want to spend on your scyk. *Keep in mind, the assumption for range 1 is that the scyk will have an alternate HLC shot, which is an optimistic case as the scyk's primary gets only 3 dice at range 1--mileage may vary*
Some of these numbers are suspiciously close to their printed costs, which has me wondering if someone at FFG started reading this thread.
I'm sure it has been read and referenced, but I didn't post MathWing 1.0 until early 2014, so wave 7 may be the first wave that they could have used the method before the design got locked in. And I don't know how comfortable they would be using someone else's formula that they didn't create or fully understand, let alone be able to manipulate into using for new ships.
I'll edit the post with the correction to the coefficient and results. I understand that part of the equation now.
As for FFG actually using it, I doubt it, but it was funny getting [incorrect] results that are <0.02 points from their printed costs.
MajorJuggler reacted to this -
The most involved part of finding the expected value is the non-jousting coefficient. Aside from that, the damage output and durability have been calculated. Named ability values can be approximated, but may be a little tricky for the ig-88s as they share (perhaps a simple [value]/2x[value] for alone and with another ig-88), and I haven't looked at valuing B's ability in particular(playtesting and general consensus agree that it has the highest value, as most ig-88 builds start by picking him).
From the dial, action bar, and stock upgrades (not counting in the title yet), the scyk has a 1.071 non-jousting coefficient. Named abilities are valued by MJ's tables.
Using the following equations:
Pjousting = {Expected Damage Output} * {Expected Durability}
Ptotal = Pjousting * {Non-jousting coefficient}Base PS value = 12*(Ptotal(1 / 1.85) + (1/150)*(Ptotal(1 / 0.8) - 1) )
PS X cost = Base PS value * (1 + ( X-1 + EPT)/24) + named ability value
We may spit out the following data on the 4 scyk pilots' values with their actual cost in parenthesis:
- Cartel Spacer(14): 13.20
- Tansarii Point(17): 15.31
- A'Shera(18): 16.31
- Serissu(20): 19.89
What conclusions do we draw from these numbers? The stock cartel spacer is overcosted by almost a point, which is practically unacceptable for how cheap the ship is, and the faction's availability of efficient headhunters as an alternative. Tansarii point veterans are hilariously overcosted by nearly 2 points; without even doing any calculation, I think a lot of people frowned immediately after seeing this pilot, and now here are the numbers that agree. A'shera is in the same basket. Serissu is the only pilot whose stock cost is around his value. Flying this ship stock is clearly not intended.
If you start putting on cannons perhaps the cost will be met. Adding ion cannon, for starters, adds 3 named value for the ion effect and changes the expected damage output to 0.9247. Total upgrade cost is 5 points. Calculated expected values:
- Cartel Spacer + Ion(19): 15.64
- Tansarii Point + Ion(22): 17.67
- A'Shera + Ion (23): 18.67
- Serissu + Ion(25): 22.18
Ion cannon does not do it. It adds 3 points of value, but also lowers your damage output overall, so it struggles to make up for lost points along the way. All pilots with this cannon are severely overcosted, and our best and brightest Serissu is nearly 2 points overcosted with this cannon. I think we need damage to make this worth it. HLC all the way:
- Cartel Spacer + HLC(23): 21.24
- Tansarii Point + HLC(26): 24.64
- A'Shera + HLC(27): 25.64
- Serissu + HLC(29): 30.19
If there ever were an explanation for why these ships need a cannon, it is this right here. Every ship is within a couple points of the calculated value or above. Tansarii point veteran and A'shera are closer to their printed costs than the spacer his time around, but all are okay value depending on how much you want to spend on your scyk. *Keep in mind, the assumption for range 1 is that the scyk will have an alternate HLC shot, which is an optimistic case as the scyk's primary gets only 3 dice at range 1--mileage may vary*
The other obvious option for damage is the mangler. The expected damage output solution does not consider discriminate hits and crits, mostly because it is difficult to model the chances of crits on shield versus hull without knowing your specific target. The solution without changing MJ's expected damage output model would be to suggest and test a named value that the manger is adding, similar to how ion effect value is incorporated into total value. Without making any assumptions of the value of a free hit to crit, the resulting values for the manger are:
- Cartel Spacer + Mangler(20): 17.04
- Tansarii Point + Mangler(23): 19.77
- A'Shera + Mangler(24): 20.77
- Serissu + Mangler(26): 24.82
Each pilot except for serissu (has value close to 3 points beneath cost. If turning a hit into a free crit is worth at least 3 points, then indeed all pilots are meeting cost fairly well. I believe that at minimum the ability is worth 1 point, but I honestly don't have the data to decide.
e: I think some wiggling of serissu's ability value could be done for when he has a cannon; the more often the enemy would want to target him because of his damage output instead of his ability, the ability has less value, but I will not bother as he is still clearly a good value.
e2: fixed non-joust coefficient for cannons values adjusting accordingly (value of each heavy scyk and my included commentary drops about a point)
-
Well, we know what the problem with ordnance is right now; it doesn't provide enough value you for what you're purchasing. That means the fix is going to somehow involve increasing that value, whether by making ordnance cheaper (probably not enough on its own), or giving you more for what you already pay. Reversing or mitigating the drain on action economy is probably going to be the very first step they take. I suspect we may see new ordnance that benefits you if you have a target lock, rather than restricting you to having one in the first place. Something like "you may roll one additional attack die if you have a target lock on the defending ship."
Rather than guess at the potential fixes, let me ask you guys this: what would a disposable upgrade have to do to make you want to invest points in it?
The one I'd want is a price reduction. Proton torpedoes, in my opinion should be 1-2 points if nothing else changes about them. I'd be fine with target locks being spent to fire so long as the attack is priced accordingly.
ParaGoomba Slayer and Jobu reacted to this -
There are a ton of suggested ideas for fixing ordnance. Too many are complicated or convoluted, or won't even be enough.
If nothing is done to the potency of the single use upgrades, the simplest solutions fall into one of a few categories:
A. Price drop. Clearly the single shot is not worth 4+ points. Worth also is heavily dependent on the target and the attackers primary being replaced. A missed attack is worth nothing. An attack that deals little more than a primary is worth little. High agility defenders will be the targets where the ordnance makes a bigger difference, but also has a higher chance of missing. Low agility targets will not be as greatly affected, where doing possibly 1 point extra of damage is worth little compared to the health pool.
B. Even with a reload, depending on how difficult the mechanic makes reuse, could make it worth it, but an analysis could be done to figure out how many uses would be needed to cover the cost. If it comes to any more than twice, I doubt it would see much use outside very survivable ships that more easily deliver torps like corran horn. I'd be leery of a reload action as you are now sacrificing an action to target lock, and an action to reload, and still need the right range to fire. Most ships will then be firing ordnance every other turn and not modifying their primary in between.
C. Making ordnance more effective. Your idea might be feasible, the ordnance has more value if it isn't replacing an attack.The crucial question is still whether the ordnance is worth its points.
Marinealver reacted to this -
Well they have slave 1 and aggressor already. They are adding bossk's ship now. That leaves us dengar, 4lom, and zuckuss. Dengar's ship is really cool and would be a slick large ship to see. 4-lom and zuckuss used the same ship which would be a small one, and if released would probably include both hunters as pilot and crew, like dash rendar and leebo in the yt-2400.
It is even a little surprising to see bossk added before dengar, as I would think that ship would be better received.
I hope the hound's tooth includes some brutal trandoshan crew, too.
-
The Kihraxz intrigues me the most right now. At first, I thought ffgs model looked like the e-wing. However, the statline looks like 3/2/1/4 with only tl and focus for actions, which reminds me of the x-wing stats. SWG didn't feature it with an astromech iirc, but it could be a candidate as second ship to use the salvaged astromech upgrade. Otherwise I guess a system slot. Probably a torp/missile slot. Assuming they don't throw any curve balls with options or crazy good dial features, I also expect a PS 1/2 generic costed 20 points or less.
-
I'm always curious how much MajorJuggler's stats are self reinforcing... Obviously the math is solid, but do the stats affect list building enough to steer tournament results in their own favor? Are people building lists in line with the stats enough that builds that go against the math aren't as well represented?
"The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers" -- Richard Hamming
I am not convinced that people are simply looking at MJ's numbers to dictate their listbuilding entirely, but they are tools to size up a ship or a build. In fact, I think MJ's work is a good way to explain sentiments and intuition the community already has towards particular ships and builds.
On reddit, other community sites discussing x-wing, and on here, I have read people talk about why this ship or that ship is not worth bringing. With a bit of experience, someone who has not looked at one calculation already has a sense of relative strengths of one ship to another and an intuitive sense of worth. In almost every thread about why people use b-wings over x-wings, one of the most common phrases I see are "why take an x-wing when 1 point more gets me the b-wing?" People already have this intuitive sense that the b-wing is worth more than just 1 point more than the x-wing. Mathwing numbers just give proof of the fact. Same for the tie advanced. Same for generic e-wings. Same for pre-refit a-wings. Same for bombers. Constantly, again and again, you can point to the deficient ships that people argue about being not worth bringing into squads, that people already know are handicapped; the numbers are just proof.
Most of the predictive value has been fairly accurate for each wave coming out.
-
I look as Alozen's ability w/ ATC as an opportunity to switch your TL to a new target once the fray happens. I'll probably always run Predator on him with ATC, so I am not really too worried about losing my action to TL. If I kill my target I can always maneuver into range 1 to get the TL on the next victim, thus freeing up for other actions.
I think Alozen + Predator + ATC for 29 points is going to be a very solid ship and when paired with Vader or something more scary, will likely be ignored.
No doubt he is good with either case, perhaps one or the other is better suited to particular matchups. ~97-107% coefficient at 50-100% duty cycle on ATC is very good. Few ships get those kinds of numbers and even a 97% would be very competitive.
-
While I like k-4 and it would assist in firing ordnance no doubt, I doubt that it makes ordnance "worth it".
Particularly when you spend your ordnance with a TL, even if you added a focus, enabled from k-4, you are replacing a cannon or primary attack that would have had TL + focus. I think your list posted at the top would be more successful if you took 2 points from elsewhere and put HLC on that same mercenary instead of the ion torpedoes. Or put those points into Kath Scarlet. Or virtually anything else that can pay off its points better than a single shot from ordnance.
Fundamentally, the single shot you get from a piece of ordnance currently is almost always priced higher than what the [additional] damage results may be, before even considering the added difficulty of range/action issues. I think a counterexample would be the range 1 proton rockets, where 3 points is a great deal for how much it can change damage potential, even for just a single attack, but still is rare to see competitively due to how few ships it is suited for and the difficulty of getting the perfect opportunity to use them.
-
That's not a justifiable claim; only one of the named Adv pilots specifically wants ATC.Nah, the named pilots will autoinclude Advanced Targetting computer.
Generics auto include AC.
That's Maarek.
Vader is happy with either- his pilot skill and ability can let him utilize ATC far more reliably than any other pilot, but with AC he can become a defensive monster without sacrificing attack power.
Alozen (and I think I have to work hard to argue this one) wants AC. Because of his ability.
His ability seems to hint towards ATC, I will grant. However, at PS5, you have very little control over arc and range. So the possibility of being able to trigger his ability against a ship that you can use ATC for is marginalized.
But now consider this: with AC, Alozen's ability gives you action economy that, not incidentally, triggers at the only place where AC falls slightly flat- rolling 3 dice, e.g. at Range 1.
So Alozen wants AC more than ATC. At all ranges, you can use your 2-hit generator...but at Range 1, you got a free target lock, which you can use with your action phase focus to see if you do better with 3+TL+F than your 2-hit generator. And even if you whiff, you can still fall back on 2 hits.
With ATC, you can sometimes use his pilot ability (what happens if there's fodder at Range 1, but your priority target is Range 2? Your pilot ability isn't useful here, since ATC only works on the target you have locked) but the pilot skill and weak dial work to his disadvantage far more than with AC.
I think I agree that we need to see how the new pilots' abilities will interact with the upgrades before determining if they will like AC/ATC better. Vader has better efficiency with the ATC over the AC and a very suitable abilitiy and PS bid to get needed target locks more often. AC is still really good with vader and a case could be made for a vader that trades a tiny bit of joust efficiency for a more free action economy used for positioning/defense.
Maarek's ability suits the ATC and still has a decent PS bid for acquiring the locks. AC with maarek, however, makes his ability quite nearly useless, and with no value added from his card text, his cost puts him under the efficiency of other options--you may as well save points with a cheaper pilot or simply pay the extra point for ATC.
MJ's numbers appear to corroborate this corollary.
As for your judgement of Alozen, I think I actually agree with you there. His ability is a bit more difficult to sucessfuly use than it appears, and people who have tried guri would see a resemblance; you cannot always guess when you will be at range 1 of a desired target above PS5, and your action choices need to predict before you see their move. If alozen takes target locks often outside range 1, and isn't spending them with ATC, his ability is not seeing use. However, if you expect a range 1 alozen opportunity and focus, but are denied range 1, you are denied use of your ATC as well.
Meanwhile, with AC on alozen, the range 1 case is the one where your primary can achieve a definitively better result better than the 2 hits the corrector guarantees.
Going back to MJ's Mathwing numbers and scrutinizing them hard enough...
Alozen with a 50% duty cycle on ATC is 97% efficient, and at 100% duty cycle on ATC is 107.3% efficient. (for reference, the PS2 generic with ATC has 92.9% and 109.3% respectively).
Alozen with AC has a 103% efficiency, and it appears MJ valued his ability directly in the expected damage output calculation. (compared to 100.5% for the PS 2 generic)
The conclusion I come to is that if I expect my alozen to have 100% duty cycle on ATC, what duty cycle would he have without his ability? If his ability is rarely responsible for the target locks, I think I may as well drop 1 PS (which I doubt will affect turn order much) to save 2 points. If I am not achieving 100% duty cycle with my alozen, am I getting above 103% efficiency I would have with AC? If not, I seriously should put AC on alozen. The role he then serves with AC is a cheap and joust-efficient option for PS bid above generics that also has a slight potential boost in damage at range 1.
-
The C-130 transport has several combat designator roles after retrofitting.Can not, not cannot, as in "it is possible for it to be not". A transport can not be primarily built for combat, but combat is the only purpose of a starfighter, how do you, assuming you're not trying to sabotage your own design, not design it for combat?
Whether you do or do not get purely ceremonial tanks, quite clearly you could, which answerers your second question.Ceremonial tank.
You're suggesting someone designs a tank for the purpose of driving it around at parades. The tank can't fight for ****. Is that even a tank any more, or is it a rather daring carnival float? Do you know what the German word for tank is? Panzerkampfwagen. Translates to Armoured Fighting Vehicle.
You can get ceremonial swords because a sword is an overgrown knife, stabbing people isn't inherent to its nature. Same with guns, it's an object for accelerating a projectile, that projectile injuring someone isn't inherent to its nature. But if a vehicle can't fight, can you really call it an armoured fighting vehicle? And if it can, if it is a combat vehicle, then its primary function is to use the gun on the top to blow up other vehicles. You can parade it around, but it's still built to fight.
"Heavy" and "super-heavy" tanks and Battleships, particularly around the time of WW2, were more often icons of national pride than entirely practical designs. While they are certainly combat-useful, logistical and strategic concerns make them poor choices on which to spend excessive resources. If you have some know-how, it is probably possible to point at any category of military equipment and find examples that were designed without maximum practicality in mind (excluding examples of "practical" designs simply failing to perform).Practicality has nothing to do with it. A battleship is still built to battle other ships, even if its design is more of an ostentatious threat than a military practicality. However impractical it may be it is still a combat vessel: it's purpose is to sink other ships. And if it isn't, what is it for?
As for tanks, the idea behind a super heavy tank is that its armour is so thick that smaller tanks can't pierce it, the problem being they were too heavy to move. The reason we no longer have light, medium and heavy tanks is because
If the N-1's primary role is not combat, why is it called a starfighter, and what is its primary role? The Visual Dictionary quote is silly. It's a starfighter. It's built for combat. Maybe not heavy military combat, but it is built to ward off and shoot down threats to the Naboo system. It fights.
Practicality has everything to do with it. You are saying that things that are ceremonial are not built for combat. You are also arguing that a ceremonial/ornamental sword or gun design is not a contradiction because fighting with a sword or gun isn't a crucial definition, but that a ceremonial tank or starfighter is a contradition because no tank or starfighter would eschew combat practical capabilities for appearance and still be called a tank or starfighter. Of course you could still fight with a ceremonial sword or gun provided its sharpened or loaded, respectively, though the ornamental features could impede you.
Looking into history for precedence, the point I made about big military hardware like superheavies and battleships being national icons rather than practical military machines. Yes, big heavy tanks and ships are made for combat, but their designers/producers/operators make the conscious decision to continue spending large amounts of their scarce time and resources knowing the unsuitability of scale to military usefulness in these designs. They do it for appearance. They like looking at a big lumbering beheamoths popping out of their factories and giant ships floating outside drydock as visible proof of national military power. You see these sorts of decisions being made more often in peacetime, when a lack of urgency and feedback gives way to some real crackpot ideas of military warfare (which I'd say is a suitable fluffy explanation for why Naboo
lost the warshould have lost the war). Point being, ceremonial would not quite be the right word to describe the real purpose of that sort of design, but it is the first word that comes to mind. -
Wow, three pages and not a soul has brought up Howlrunner. There were other factors, certainly, but the TIE swarm fell out of favor right about the same time the Phantom was released. The Phantom absolutely killed formation flying, and the TIE swarm wasn't the only victim. Swarms can be ran without Howl, of course, but her obvious potency was the major reason to run TIEs in the first place. Take formation flying, and thus Howl, out of the equation, and what you get is a several month dearth of swarms showing up at the final tables.
Howlrunner can be a tipping factor, especially if the meta is heavily jousting and hinging on maximizing your joust efficiency, but I seriously doubt taking howlrunner out alone is responsible for tie swarms losing in our current meta that has lots of arc dodgers, BBBBZ, turrets, and miniswarms.
Howlrunner or not, I am confident that an 8 tie swarm will beat anything a howlrunner + 6 ties will beat except maybe howlrunner + 6 ties.
-
Dual IG-88s. They have HLCs with a gunner ability to punch through a swarm's defense dice, high agility against 2-dice attacks and 8 HP to keep them alive even if you manage to pull off a range 1 assault. I won't bring a list to a tournament anymore unless each ship is capable of attacking with 4 red dice.
I disagree. The problem with a two ship build is that they can only fire (at best) at two targets. A swarm can fire many, many more times than twice. Take a 7 Tie swarm. Sure they only roll two base red die, but 7 TIMES!. Ships only rolling 1 green die are seriously threatened by this. Even a ship rolling 2 or three green die fall to the cruelty of fate once that token(s) is gone. A swarm is much more likely to cause action denial and block flight paths as well.
All too often people believe that swarms are only flown in formation. This is not true. A good swarm will control the board, force action were they want it, and take advantage of their numbers.
At range 3, ties are not going to do much at all to 3 base agi with autothrusters. The odds of dealing even 1 damage are so heavily against it. Meanwhile, odds are high that a tie will be wiped from the board. The following turn, the ig-2000s can adv sen boost + 4 k-turn (with an evade, if C is involved). The distance traveled by this maneuver is 7 bases long (half a base shy of an entire range ruler). If you unexpectedly block that spot, the ig-88 can bank boost and land in another spot. If you block the ig-88's boost, he can leave his k-turn where it is. You'd have to then block both his boost and his k-turn to successfully trap him (he will still have his action this turn, thanks to adv sen), but the ties will then have at least 1 shot from them denied by the block, at least 1 shot outside range 1 or denied if he had to turn too hard. Then they have to survive another pair of HLC&gunner volleys. If first turn didn't yield a dead tie, this turn almost surely will. If it did, there is a significant possibility of a second one dying before a return volley. That leaves you with your first significant turn of damage dealing having already lost 1-2 ties, being denied a shot yourself to blocking, and 1 of your ships out of range 1. That leaves you *ideally* with 3-4 range 1 attacks and 1 range 2 attack. Odds are slim that you will destroy ig-88 in a single round of fire from that, and the following turn you cannot block him from high-tailing it out of there on a green + boost(+ evade). If you can't k-turn the next turn, you will not catch him. If you can k-turn, he will be at range 3 with an evade and autothrusters again except you have no focuses.
If your ties get split up too much, ig-88s will eat them like its pac-man. I'd say a good ig-88 player should be able to predictibly beat a tie swarm most of the time.
-
A collection of unfinished thoughts:
Separate the Bs in some way or get some kind of advantage. If you can split them up in some way and take them out without engaging the whole group, you can come out ahead. At the edge of range 3, you can force part of his squad to be out of range. If you can't do that, getting his b-wings split among different range bands may be the advantage you need.
With outriders/falcons/decimator/firespray, you can control range fairly well. Force them to make a bank first thing. If they are box/line formation, their arcs will be farther apart if they have to bank. If they are pinwheel formation, this isn't necessary. Ideally, get them behind your ship in chase. At the edge of range 3, you can get your shot while keeping part of their squad out of range. Carefully play the edge of the board if you need room and make sure you don't get cornered before you thin the herd a significant amount. Pull them near asteroids, possibly splitting them up.
With a comparable swarm/joust list, you can manipulate how you block enemy movement and engage. If you move after the b-wings, you can start a range 1 engagement in front of them, then k-turn the next. Their k-turn will be blocked, giving you a free shot on them. If you can, get a small horizontal distance between his group (with placement, banks, or barrel rolls) and yours. If you land near the edge of range 3, bank into his squad, so that you are straight in front of him, but he is 45 degrees off. Focus down any ships that might be blocking your next turn's k-turn. This can give you a slight edge.
You can also try to get into a better formation than him. If you can assure that you will start on the opposite corner of his list, leave a horizontal lane with asteroid placement in the center of the board. Move your ships in file (use barrel rolls or banks to do this) up the side of the board and then turn towards the center. This will give your formation a single wide line. If the b-wings are not suitably placed the same, they will be forced to turn into the center of the board and more likely split their fire across range bands.
If you have control, focus the damage, but spread the control if it is unlikely to get the killing damage. Ion from BTL-A4 y-wings can be fired at separate targets when necessary. As a rule of thumb, hit ion onto the b-wings with the (otherwise) best position for next turn. Don't bother to ion the guy who won't be able to k-turn or turn towards you anyways. Get the one whose ion will force him off into the distance and without a shot.
-
I have been playing with 4. It is easy to pick any faction and use a 4-ship miniswarm at 48-52 points (ties or z-95), depending on PS bid, and then playing around with the other 48-52 points to make a superstar or upgrade/trade miniswarm ships.
-
Is there a "swift decline" going on? I'd love to throw in my rationalizations for why that might be into the discussion, as there are identifiable advantages and disadvantages in flying with swarms that may deter players.
But is it even happening?
List Juggler says, when filtering for store championships, that use by ship count numbers are:
14.13% for tie fighters
10.9% for b-wings
12.42% for rebel z-95s
When looking at their representation in the elimination rounds only, the numbers are:
13.76% for tie fighters
12.17% for b-wings
15.66% for rebel z-95s
In elimination rounds, 41.59% of ships reaching the table are one of 3 most swarmy/jousty ships available in-game.
Glancing briefly at the 2015 winners tab, nearly all the lists that are not 2-ship lists I am seeing at a glance include multiples of either z-95s, b-wings, or tie fighters (there are a few off-color swarms out there, like a 6 a-wing swarm and an alpha squadron, but maybe they are outliers).
I think swarms and miniswarms are getting plenty of representation, but I think the pure swarms have threats that now have the tools to better exploit a swarm's weaknesses.
Teirdome and Nightshrike reacted to this -
Honour guards are human. They weren't designed and built by an arms manufacturer.
Do you get "purely ceremonial" tanks?
A freighter can not be built for combat because its primary role is transporting cargo. A shuttle can not be designed for combat because it's primary role is transporting people. But all a starfighter does is fight. How can you have a starfighter for which the primary role is not starfighting?
Utilitarian design can be to a degree, not absolute.
"Heavy" and "super-heavy" tanks and Battleships, particularly around the time of WW2, were more often icons of national pride than entirely practical designs. While they are certainly combat-useful, logistical and strategic concerns make them poor choices on which to spend excessive resources. If you have some know-how, it is probably possible to point at any category of military equipment and find examples that were designed without maximum practicality in mind (excluding examples of "practical" designs simply failing to perform).
-
-
4x z-95 miniswarms are strong. Extra BTL-A4 titles is nice if you plan on stacking up 3-4 y-wings. Double scum firespray is neat. If more scum ships with crew slots are released, K4 security droid will remain a favorite choice. Hot shot blaster is interesting.
If those ideas don't interest you, a second isn't worth it.
-
2x Binayre
2x Thugs with ion cannon turret and BTL-A4
1x Bonearm with ion cannon and veteran instincts
The damage output is scary, especially if bonearm stays alive longer than he should. If all your ion cannons are firing each turn, his ability is almost surely to be used each turn.
The main concerns for this list are HLC ships that can play keep away from the range 1-2 limited ions. I played against 2 outrider builds and they were both very close matches. One match was won by tagging the outrider with ion after he had PTL and keeping one y-wing in the donut hole from then on. The other was lost by 1 hull, but he had nien nunb which made it harder to exploit the turns he was tagged with ion.
Rabid Bantha reacted to this -
The firespray's stats put it's durability higher than that of a decimator or falcon and right behind the outrider. The main differences, of course, being that those other ships have turrets and different numbers of crew and crew options. If you want your firespray to last as long as one of the usual suspects, the stats are doing it out of the box. You should be asking yourself, then, "Why do these other ships [seem to] last longer on the table?" Gather the possible explanations and assess how suitable each explanation is. Glancing briefly at the math behind the statistics, it seems clear that the explanations must lie in decisions made in building and/or in decisions made on the table.
Consider the following and do some play-testing, perhaps you will find a solution or at the very least an explanation:
-Is it the upgrades/pilot abilities available? Rebels have c3-p0, falcon title, and r2-d2 mitigating damage each round. Imperials have Ysanne. Pilot abilities like chewie's and kenkirk's also are giving an effective bonus to their durability and will last longer than other pilots in the same ship under fire. Even though imperial firesprays can get Ysanne aboard, her effect will trigger with less time left in the firespray's lifespan compared to the decimator, it is not as efficient an option to elongate the firespray's lifespan. Are you doing anything to grant your firespray per-turn guaranteed damage mitigation? Have you been taking the evade action often? That might be enough, if you invest in some extra action economy and commit some to taking that evade option for defense(hello PTL, perhaps K4, etc.).
-Is it the wingmen options? You have another ~50 points to consider when pairing with your big blingy ship. Is your opponent more likely to target your firespray above the other part of your list for any reason? How have you been flying them in conjunction?
-Is it the turret/dial differences? How often do big turret ships fire inside their front arc? How often is your firespray firing in its front arc? Where do you place your firespray so that it may fire on the enemy, in harm's way? A big tactical advantage of the turret is to have more freedom of movement while still having offensive opportunities. Good players I have seen making good use of turrets are often flying away from, perpendicular to, or past enemy ships in an attempt to limit the number of shots being fired at them. Perhaps you should think of ways to do the same with the firespray, making use of that rear arc more often. Try taking distance against numerically superior enemies, to split them between range bands or even edging some out of range entirely. A single small ship at the edge of range 3, with its teammates unable to fire, is quite likely to lose against the firespray. Kath Scarlet's ability is really good for this tactic. Consider also EU and/or inertial dampeners for better range control, but mind your action economy.
You may find your answer while pondering these questions.
-
It's never too late to learn anything in this game.
Here's some tips which I maybe repeating
Fel + Push the limit and autothrusters imo is a must.
If you have the extra points you can throw hull upgrade or stealth device on him
Royal guard pilots are awesome for their pt value
At 22 pts you get a extra two point score for 1 squad point, plus they have an elite slot, which makes them really great.
For 21 points you can get a interceptor with a ps of 4 and no elite slot.
I've seen two royal guards with ptl, hull upgrade, royal guard title and shield upgrade become a big pain in the butt.
Turr is another good pilot
Give him veteran instincts to make him a ps 9 and shot first and then boost or barrel roll out of the way
Or ptl
Focus, hope he survives, attack, his ability kicks in barrel or or boost and ptl to do another action.
Jax is starting to become more popular in lists it seems. Again ptl and autothrusters (autothrusters is great on any interceptor really for two pts)
If you can fly them well getting jax into range one and prevent your opponent from using their focus or evades is a great way to deny upgrades like Blaster Turret.
What I highly suggest set up a squad.
Doesn't have to be flown in a swarm.
Fel, a bounty hunter and another ship or two for example ( just whatever you want to use)
Set up your play area when your alone, and just practice flying around.
Learn how you would like to set up the asteroids and starting placement for what your flying, and get a feel for it.
It takes practice, but it'll come to ya.
Remember impatience is the death of a interceptor.
Live to fight another day.
Getting them into what could be a bad situation just to shoot will likely lead to a quick death.
The green dice can never be trusted
Saber squadron has an EPT, but they cannot take royal guard title because of their PS.
-
Firespray is pretty good. On the imperial side, the bounty hunter isn't a bad option and the 3x bounty hunters was an admittedly rare, but decent list in tournaments past. I don't feel the imperial named pilots have crushingly powerful abilities, but are a good value if you want a high PS bid.
Now that scum exists, the generic is 2 points more but gets you 2 PS, the illicit slot, and an EPT slot over the imperial version, and is a very good value if you don't care to PS bid to 7+, but want upgrades. Scum Kath Scarlet and Boba Fett are fantastically good. My experience so far has been that Boba is a very powerful vs a swarm/miniswarm, but Kath has a better edge against large ships and turrets. K4 Security Droid (crew card limited to scum) is, I feel, a better value than any of any single crew for a firespray than what imperials offer. Emon is flavorfully cool, but I am skeptical of his competitive value.
MathWing: Comprehensive ship jousting values and more
in X-Wing
Posted · Edited by zero9300
Two main equations set forth in post #3 for finding the value of any test ship:
Pjousting = {Expected Damage Output} * {Expected Durability}
and
jousting value = 12*( Pjousting(1 / 1.85) + (1/150)*(Pjousting(1 / 0.8) - 1) )
{Expected Damage Output} = {Mean damage from the Test Ship} / {Mean damage from a tie fighter}
The mean damage calculation makes weighted assumptions about how often the attacker has a focus, the defender has a focus, the range, and the agility of the defender (meta-dependent assumptions). Post #3 explains in more detail, but there is also a list for the damage outputs for most of the relevant cases.
For the x-wing example, you can grab from the table the standard defense meta damage output for 3 base dice, 1.7058. The meaning of this number is that the x-wing's damage output is expected to be 1.7058 times the damage output of a tie fighter.
{Expected Damage Output} = {Mean rounds to destroy the Test Ship} / {Mean rounds to destroy a Tie fighter}
Expected durability is a bit more complicated. It is related to the mean shots to destroy a ship, completely independent of the test ship's damage output. The meta-dependent assumptions this time are defender focus availability, attacker action economy, range, and attacker base power. Explicitly include critical damage on hull that result in double damage. After mean rounds to destroy is calculated, make an adjustment for critical damage on hull that were not double damage as +1/3rd damage. Again, details are in post #3, but there is also a list for expected durability of each regular ship.
Again, for the x-wing example, the expected durability for standard attack meta is 1.202. The meaning of this number is that the x-wing under fire will last 1.202 times the number of rounds a tie fighter would.
These two numbers describe all you need to know about joust value of the x-wing. Just plug numbers into the equations and you have a 17.8 joust value.