...the only thing the B lacks compared to the X is the Speed 3 bank/turn.

Well, that's four maneuvers, and the banks in particular are useful when you're managing an approach (which is what I imagine will be happening most of the time when an opponent engages you with Flechettes). But perhaps it's useful to point out that when I fly X-wings I use R2 Astromechs whenever I can afford them to fix exactly this kind of stress problem--and I certainly never run PTL without an R2.

I don't see a lot of difference between the B and the X, honestly.

Its probably also useful to note that for the last while I've been flying mostly TIE Fighters, Firesprays, and the very occasional Interceptor. In comparison to those, the X-wing does kind of fly like a bantha: it doesn't have the TIE's 1-turn or 3K, both of which I use all the time, and although the Firespray and X-wing have essentially the same dial, the auxiliary arc makes it an entirely different ship on the table.

I would argue that, flown right, the B-Wing has a better dial than an X-Wing. Yes, several of its best moves - the 1 turn (which the X-Wing doesn't even have), the 3 bank, and the 4 forward are red. That just means their use is very situational. It also means that many players ignore them entirely, other players then forget they're there, and when you DO bust one out at the right time, it often throws people off their game.

The B-Wing can also make up a half base length of speed by rolling, though, which means when closing it can 3-forward, roll forward, and wind up half a base shy of a 4 forward. Not far. So they approach a little slower, and the can't do big fast banks without stress. That's about the extend of the limitations of their dial. The 2k is terrifying in a furball, the barrel roll gives them an incredible amount of versatility in deciding where it's going to land - arc dodging and/or setting up unanswerable shots.

If you fly them the same way you'd fly another fighter in the game, yes - you will think they're terrible. They're just a tricky, finicky beast that takes a little practice to master. Once you get your head around the dial, those ships can dance. And yes, AdvS makes them even better at it. But just about everything goes well with them, and they don't need AdvS to be scary ships against someone who knows how to fly them.

CW, you have repeatedly ignored what he said.

WITH A STRESS TOKEN, the b-wing dial is one of the worst. Not IN GENERAL.

His argument as I understand it is that the new Droid hurts the dreaded B-Wing more than the much maligned INT. Which is relevant because everyone is boohooing the INT

YOU'RE ignoring the fact that he, in various places, claimed that with OR without stress, if it didn't have advanced sensors, it was not a good dial. I LIKE TO CAPITALIZE TOO.

According to http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1537547/chrisdk?size=original (helpful) the chances of 3+ hits in a 4 attack vs. 3 defense, with TL+F on the attacking side and E+F on the defending side is 4.1%.

You're looking at the wrong column--you can't spend an evade token against Homing Missiles, so it's 25.5% to one-shot an Interceptor with a TL+Focus stack Homing Missile.

Fair enough - forgot the evade limitation. Still well lower than advertised.

Oh the irony.

Indeed.

But at least I actually bothered to investigate, rather than taking numbers that didn't pass the smell test and throwing them out as proof for a dismissive bit of handwaving.

I honestly baffled at this. Interceptors are already barely seen. PtL is really the only thing that keeps them competitive. The new options utterly hose PtL. How is any of this in dispute?

Well, that's four maneuvers, and the banks in particular are useful when you're managing an approach (which is what I imagine will be happening most of the time when an opponent engages you with Flechettes). But perhaps it's useful to point out that when I fly X-wings I use R2 Astromechs whenever I can afford them to fix exactly this kind of stress problem--and I certainly never run PTL without an R2.

I don't see this as being all that different, though.

If an X or B eats a Flechette on the approach, the 3 Bank is meaningless - if we're in a head-on pass and I'm stressed, I'm not going to pull a while and let the next round of firing be with me stressed and you not. I'm going to take a green. An X and a B would take the exact same maneuver in this case. Even ignoring that, I'd argue that the difference between a 3 Bank and a 2 Bank during a close is largely irrelevant.

I think part of the difference here is that you're counting maneuvers, and I'm looking at the usefulness of the maneuvers they do have. Yes, the B has fewer, but I'd maintain that the ones it lacks are ones that you won't miss anyway.

Which is relevant because everyone is boohooing the INT

Not only does it really harm the B's ability to move, it also makes AdvSen pointless.

The difference between a 3 bank and a 2 bank with a forward roll at the end, to either side, is even less. You don't want to roll right into combat but it's a great tool when closing with the enemy early.

I would argue that, flown right, the B-Wing has a better dial than an X-Wing. Yes, several of its best moves - the 1 turn (which the X-Wing doesn't even have), the 3 bank, and the 4 forward are red. That just means their use is very situational. It also means that many players ignore them entirely, other players then forget they're there, and when you DO bust one out at the right time, it often throws people off their game.

The B-Wing can also make up a half base length of speed by rolling, though, which means when closing it can 3-forward, roll forward, and wind up half a base shy of a 4 forward. Not far. So they approach a little slower, and the can't do big fast banks without stress. That's about the extend of the limitations of their dial. The 2k is terrifying in a furball, the barrel roll gives them an incredible amount of versatility in deciding where it's going to land - arc dodging and/or setting up unanswerable shots.

If you fly them the same way you'd fly another fighter in the game, yes - you will think they're terrible. They're just a tricky, finicky beast that takes a little practice to master. Once you get your head around the dial, those ships can dance. And yes, AdvS makes them even better at it. But just about everything goes well with them, and they don't need AdvS to be scary ships against someone who knows how to fly them.

As mentioned, you've missed the point of comparison. I agree that currently, B-wings are the most maneuverable of ships the rebellion has, despite its dial. However, in an environment where stress is more easily induced, the. B-wing loses a of its current advantage in that area. So, while people are arguing this is going to hurt interceptors the most, they actually will still have a lot of options where a B-wing won't.

Which is relevant because everyone is boohooing the INT

Not only does it really harm the B's ability to move, it also makes AdvSen pointless.

This was pointed out above. Advanced Sensors is great, but the B-wing's still a solid ship without it.

Taking PtL away from Interceptors severely impacts their survivability, when their cost:fragility is already the primary concern.

Take Advanced Sensors away from a B-wing and it's still a tougher version of the X-wing. Take PtL away from an Interceptor and it's an overpriced TIE Fighter.

And then lets look at crits.

They only matter if 2 hits get through as 1 crit still won't 1hko you, and 3 hits will kill you regardless of if it's a crit.

So chances of 2 hits getting through:

Chance of rolling 4 hits = 77%

Chance of rolling 3 hits = 21%

Chance of rolling 1 evade = 26%

Chance of rolling 0 evade = 5%

Chance of doing 2 damage = 4h * 2e + 3h * 1e + 2h * 0e = 26.5%

And chances of 1 of those being a crit = 33%, 2 being crits = 7%, 3 being crits = 1%, 4 being crits = 0% (not actually, but rounds). This is assuming the TL doesn't reroll hits. Feel free to check the math on this as well.

So, then chance of getting 2 crits through = 4h * (4c + 3c + 2c) * 2e + 3h * (3c + 2c) * 1e + 2h * (2c) * 0e = 2.1%

And then the chance of at least one of those crits dealing 2 damage = 1--(1-(7/33 + 2/33 * 3/8))^2 = 41.5%

So now we're up to 26.5 + .021*.415 = 27.4% And now lets look at the probability of hitting with 1 crit that causes double damage.

chance of getting 1 crit through = 4h * 1c * 2e + 3h * 1c *1e + 2h * 1c * 1e = 8.8%. And the crit has a 23.5% of double damage

So the true probability of one shotting a TIE (with a defensive focus) unobstructed is 29.5% with a TL+F Homing missile.

Interceptors are already barely seen. PtL is really the only thing that keeps them competitive.

I mainly see them in two contexts:

(1) Sabers+PTL and occasionally Soontir+PTL, usually in multiples.

(2) Alphas, as escorts/flankers in lists anchored by a mini-swarm or Firespray.

PTL isn't even an issue in the second context, since they're in there as cheap muscle and not as ninjas.

The new options utterly hose PtL.

They don't, though. They force you to think differently about whether and when to use PTL, but if you set aside the Interceptor issue for just a moment, that's probably a good thing for overall balance. The most important list-building question for anyone with an EPT right now is "can it use PTL"? If not, then maybe you go looking at the 1-point options, but more likely you just leave the slot open.

What I hear you saying is, I think, that the usefulness of PTL on Interceptors means Interceptors are hit worse by stress-inducing game elements than other ships. But for that to be true, PTL would have to be the only context in which Interceptors are ever run, and see (2) above.

If you have a list with Interceptors but no PTL, nothing has changed. If you have a list with 2-4 PTL Interceptors, then you accept that you might lose one as the price of doing business as an Interceptor list--and then you turn the ship carrying R3-A2 into slag and proceed with your plan. If you have exactly one PTL Interceptor, you change your deployment and stay out of its arc until the rest of the list can turn the ship carrying R3-A2 into slag.

I'm equally baffled that there are so many players who apparently think a marginal change in the utility of PTL is game-over for a whole ship class.

I completely lost track of the argument. Does the Interceptor (via the Push the Limit hate) take a hit? Yes, there can be no denying it. Now, I think the point of contention is how much of a hit it takes. I've had some success with Alphas as support/blocking ships. So, these developments are not a huge hindrance to how I've played Interceptors in the past. Those that have relied on Push the Limit in the past are just going to have to adjust, by planning ahead. Flechette Torpedoes are not that scary against an unstressed Interceptor.

So let's grant it - hell, let's take it all the way up to 50% for that one-shot.

What does it take to do that? It's a 5-point upgrade for a one-shot attack on a ship that you probably wouldn't take otherwise (if anyone starts arguing the awesomeness of the A-wing at this point, I'm done) that has a 50% chance of accomplishing it, AND you're assuming some form of action passing or PtL to get the Focus as well. All that for one attack.

Compared to a 2-point upgrade that does it every turn for the entire game.

You're right - you win. If you consider those things equivalent, there's really very little point in discussing it. I look forward to Interceptors rolling into the Top 4 this year.

The B-Wing does not have a terrible dial. It is not very fast, true, but it is unparalleled as an in-close dogfighter. Particularly with advanced sensors, it can fly extremely unpredictably and be maddeningly hard to pin down. Calling it a terrible dial simply because it's a very focused one is very misleading.

Just highlighting this quote out because I think the issue people are having here is the difference between dial and maneuver. They are seemingly being used interchangeably and shouldn't be.

But at least I actually bothered to investigate, rather than taking numbers that didn't pass the smell test and throwing them out as proof for a dismissive bit of handwaving.

Khyros has a pretty good rep here, and has done a fair amount of mathwing stuff. He he said he miss-typed something and come up with the wrong value by mistake, I and I think most other people here are inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt on that.

No matter how correct your point may or may not be, accusing Khyros of throwing out fake numbers to make a point is not going to do your argument any favors around here, and is frankly not much more then ad hominem... Because his larger point is valid. The droid in question isn't nearly as big of a threat as some of the things that are already out there.

However I do agree to your point that the Interceptor has the most hard counters in the game, and as such is seen rarely in competitive lists. And a number of things coming out do in fact make PtL a less effective upgrade.

But perhaps rather then simply giving up on the Interceptor as a lost cause put some effort into figuring out how to make it work in the new reality we have.

Compared to a 2-point upgrade that does it every turn for the entire game.

So now R3-A2 can one shot a Tie Interceptor every turn of the game?

I would argue that, flown right, the B-Wing has a better dial than an X-Wing. Yes, several of its best moves - the 1 turn (which the X-Wing doesn't even have), the 3 bank, and the 4 forward are red. That just means their use is very situational. It also means that many players ignore them entirely, other players then forget they're there, and when you DO bust one out at the right time, it often throws people off their game.

The B-Wing can also make up a half base length of speed by rolling, though, which means when closing it can 3-forward, roll forward, and wind up half a base shy of a 4 forward. Not far. So they approach a little slower, and the can't do big fast banks without stress. That's about the extend of the limitations of their dial. The 2k is terrifying in a furball, the barrel roll gives them an incredible amount of versatility in deciding where it's going to land - arc dodging and/or setting up unanswerable shots.

If you fly them the same way you'd fly another fighter in the game, yes - you will think they're terrible. They're just a tricky, finicky beast that takes a little practice to master. Once you get your head around the dial, those ships can dance. And yes, AdvS makes them even better at it. But just about everything goes well with them, and they don't need AdvS to be scary ships against someone who knows how to fly them.

As mentioned, you've missed the point of comparison. I agree that currently, B-wings are the most maneuverable of ships the rebellion has, despite its dial. However, in an environment where stress is more easily induced, the. B-wing loses a of its current advantage in that area. So, while people are arguing this is going to hurt interceptors the most, they actually will still have a lot of options where a B-wing won't.

I did not miss anyone's point, as I explained, although some people seem to be willfully ignoring mine. A point, I should point out, which you yourself just made for me. You're trying to point out that the discussion is the B-Wing as it relates to an environment with more stress being handed out. Fine, I get that. I officially acknowledge that point, for the record. So stop saying I'm ignoring the point.

You also, however, couldn't resist slipping this in there...

" I agree that currently, B-wings are the most maneuverable of ships the rebellion has, despite its dial."

Ok, we're talking about stress. I get that. And yet, as everyone above is doing as well, you couldn't help slipping in a shot at the B-wing's dial. That statement right there, in your own words, is the fundamental, underlying starting point that most people are coming at this from, perhaps not even consciously realizing they're doing it.

My point is that I think it's helpful to challenge and question that perception, which seems to be coloring everyone's arguments, so that you're at least coming at the stress question from the right angle, and not tacking on preconceived notions about what a terrible dial it is. "Despite its dial" tells me, right there, as was thrown in numerous places earlier in the discussion, that there's a prejudice against the dial that I think is unfair. Which is why I was arguing against that, setting aside (and not blindly missing) the point about factoring in a stress token.

The assumption does not consider the stress token, so neither was I.

I just find it hilariously ironic that in the middle of taking me to task over the fact that 'nobody is saying it's a bad dial in general...' you slipped in an aside about how it's a bad dial in general. And I'm not even convinced people realize they're doing that.

Interceptors are already barely seen. PtL is really the only thing that keeps them competitive.

I mainly see them in two contexts:

(1) Sabers+PTL and occasionally Soontir+PTL, usually in multiples.

(2) Alphas, as escorts/flankers in lists anchored by a mini-swarm or Firespray.

PTL isn't even an issue in the second context, since they're in there as cheap muscle and not as ninjas.

In Froggie's last Vassal tournament, the top 24 had only 2 players that ran Interceptors at all. Theorist's list isn't up any more but I assume he was running PtL (it's titled as Sabers), and yours had PtL.

<shrug> My view on it is simple: Interceptors are expensive, fragile, and are a liability in a list. PtL boosts them enough to be worth risking that liability. Take away PtL, and there's nothing left but the liability. They're already so far down the competitive list that they simply can't survive any further hits to their meta viability.

That's the important thing. It's basically indisputable that very few use Interceptors right now. This certainly isn't going to make them MORE desirable - there's nothing in the new previews that will make you say "Hey, those are nasty ships but an Interceptor will be the perfect counter!" We can argue all year over how big the negative impact will be, but there IS a negative impact. Interceptors can't go anywhere but down from this. We're arguing degrees, but I think that's indisputable.

I think as well, while this does impact the use of squints, with ptl, aside from the one droid, they will eventually take out the stress causing torps. Perhaps it makes it more important to avoid those shots early and try and take out who holds them sooner. For imperials perhaps it makes Kagi an even better choice, as the torps aren't the heaviest hitting and won't cause him stress while he'll draw the target locks. Those torps do effect the squints pretty well, perhaps forcing a redesign in what has been standard set up to date on them.

Perhaps pushing use of those dual mod slots for shields and hull over just spamming push the limit ? I think it hits harder on all squint lists. Though we will see how it effects most all of the smaller ships. Perhaps they'll push higher use of the larger imperial ships like shuttles and firesprays ? Either way, we won't see nothing but these and even when we do, only so many. Truly worrying over it is pointless for right now. These new releases will shake things up again, but that is what we want isn't it ? To see things moved around see if anything else settles at the top. The real question will be, will it alter the top tier lists ? Or is this just a mild diversification of casual builds ? Time will tell.

Compared to a 2-point upgrade that does it every turn for the entire game.

So now R3-A2 can one shot a Tie Interceptor every turn of the game?

It can leave a PtL Interceptor with no tokens on the next turn, every turn. At which point it is very likely dead.

I think a lot of people are forgetting the core problem of the Interceptor. It's not turrets, it's not even stress: It's that it's an expensive ship which is very fragile for its cost. Any list which is going to use Interceptors has to overcome that. There really aren't a lot of ways to do that - you stay out of arcs to avoid getting shot, add Stealth Device, and stack tokens. That's really it. Turrets are such a problem for Interceptors because they neutralize #1. Stress delivery kills #1 and #3.

If an Interceptor is stressed in the forest, and nobody is flying it anyway, does it still make a sound?
Or something.

My point is that I think it's helpful to challenge and question that perception, which seems to be coloring everyone's arguments, so that you're at least coming at the stress question from the right angle, and not tacking on preconceived notions about what a terrible dial it is. "Despite its dial" tells me, right there, as was thrown in numerous places earlier in the discussion, that there's a prejudice against the dial that I think is unfair. Which is why I was arguing against that, setting aside (and not blindly missing) the point about factoring in a stress token.

The assumption does not consider the stress token, so neither was I. P

In fairness my post was being typed up when the other with a similar theme came in. I think it's fine you're challenging the notion, but context is important when doing so, and while I understand your point about certain moves you value in the dial, I just don't agree with the idea that it is a "good dial" in and of itself. That's why I brought up the point about maneuver vs. dial.

The problem is that we just added another rock to the meta. It's not Rock Paper Scissors any more - it's Rock Rock ('till you drop) Rock Paper Scissors. There's a certain point where picking scissors is just dumb.

Here I thought it was Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock.

My point is that I think it's helpful to challenge and question that perception, which seems to be coloring everyone's arguments, so that you're at least coming at the stress question from the right angle, and not tacking on preconceived notions about what a terrible dial it is. "Despite its dial" tells me, right there, as was thrown in numerous places earlier in the discussion, that there's a prejudice against the dial that I think is unfair. Which is why I was arguing against that, setting aside (and not blindly missing) the point about factoring in a stress token.

The assumption does not consider the stress token, so neither was I. P

In fairness my post was being typed up when the other with a similar theme came in. I think it's fine you're challenging the notion, but context is important when doing so, and while I understand your point about certain moves you value in the dial, I just don't agree with the idea that it is a "good dial" in and of itself. That's why I brought up the point about maneuver vs. dial.

And I do think it's a solid dial in and of itself - what IS a dial, if not the maneuvers it grants you? - which is why I was debating the point while getting hollered at about Advanced Sensors and stress.

It can leave a PtL Interceptor with no tokens on the next turn, every turn. At which point it is very likely dead.

But that's not what you said. You compared the droid to a missile that can one shot a Interceptor every turn, saying that they were effectively the same thing. So based on that if I put R3 on a X-Wing with 3 other random ships. I can count on shooting down a Interceptor every turn of the game. So the game is over 4 turns after both sides get into range.

Hyperbole of this magnitude does not help your argument any.

It can leave a PtL Interceptor with no tokens on the next turn, every turn. At which point it is very likely dead.

But that's not what you said. You compared the droid to a missile that can one shot a Interceptor every turn, saying that they were effectively the same thing. So based on that if I put R3 on a X-Wing with 3 other random ships. I can count on shooting down a Interceptor every turn of the game. So the game is over 4 turns after both sides get into range.

Hyperbole of this magnitude does not help your argument any.

Neither does intentionally misreading and misrepresenting my argument.

I meant that A3 can do what he does every turn. I've made that argument repeatedly.

If you want to argue that a 30% chance of removing one Interceptor with a 5-point upgrade is the same as neutralizing the action ability of one per turn, fine - let's have that discussion. But I had thought you were better than that sort of blatantly dishonest intentional misreading.