You've described the roll of the x1, but not the standard Advanced. This poor ship needs an identity.

You've described the roll of the x1, but not the standard Advanced. This poor ship needs an identity.

I'm pretty sure the x1 is the standard advance (ie Vader's ship).

Edit:Checked Wookiepedia my mistake. Didn't realize the avenger was called the advance.

Explain to me how you can come up with a formula to account for the random rolling of dice. Adding in variables for re-rolls because of abilities, target locks, upgrade cards. On top of using focus tokens to change results, special card effects that further change dice results. If you could come up with a formula in order to determine the random variables? You could come up with numbers, however you CANNOT be right constantly. The fact is when it comes down to the math it will always be right/constant. The practical rolling of dice however is not the same as a mathematical formula.

A die roll is a random variable--in this case, one with only three or four outcomes. As I noted above, there are a lot of really straightforward and well-developed tools for dealing with that kind of randomness. They're not as well known as other kinds of math, but that doesn't prevent them from being applied here.

The usage of the Tie Advanced is directly tied to the way a person pilot its. This means that by a person not flying it the "Proper" way or flying it "his or her way". Will effectively change whether it earns back it's points or not, simple as that. You will have X amount of people who say it did and X amount of people said it didn't. Not everyone who has ever used the Tie Advanced has been accounted for in speaking up about it. Thus the jury is still out except for those who believe in the idea that it doesn't get it's points back. You are also still left to the dice rolling, because good/bad dice rolling. Those results will also effect how well the ship earns it's points back.

A TIE Advanced deals, on average, no more than 60% of the damage of an X-wing. It lives, on average, no more than 45% longer than an X-wing. The very crudest way to talk about the return on your investment in a TIE Advanced is to make that kind of relative comparison--in which you would reasonably conclude that even after you take its longer life into account, you get about 1.45 * 0.60 = 0.87 or 87% of the offensive output from a TIE Advanced than you would from an X-wing. (And that's actually the best-case scenario for the Advanced.)

And the two ships cost the same, which is a problem if destroying your opponent is the goal of the scenario.

The Tie Advanced and Tie Fighter share the same offense handicap, yet no one complains about the Tie Fighter. Maybe because of how much cheaper it is, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who say the same thing about any 2 attack dice fighter. They are at a vast disadvantage compared to all the others, why is the Tie Advanced so special compared to the everything else?

Because the TIE Advanced is the most expensive fighter with 2 Attack. Its competition currently cost 17 points and 12 points (for the A-wing and TIE Fighter, respectively); by the end of the year, hopefully, that will have changed to 15, 12, and 12 for the A-wing, TIE Fighter, and Headhunter. The TIE Advanced has, accordingly, the least efficient offense of any fighter in the game.

The TIE Fighter, for instance, does have the same offensive handicap--but it costs almost half as much. Two TIE Fighters are a much better buy than one Advanced: twice as much offense, slightly higher durability, a better dial, and an extra action in the bargain.

The TIE Advanced isn't overcosted or inefficient.

It is a defensively oriented fighter.

It's a turtle, and the existing tournament format may as well be renamed "**** turtles!"

It is at least as cost efficient as an X-wing and probably moreso. The strategies & tactics at which it is most efficient are not practical on a 75 minute timer, especially where a Modified win is worth less.

That's not actually the case, though.

I mean, you are right, it's VERY close to the X-Wing. EXTREMELY close, in fact - the dials are virtually identical, even (move the center column of the X-Wing "forward one", and *boom*, identical dials).

I'd posted a more complete analysis over on BGG - worth a read, as it goes into more detail . However, the take-away is that, even accounting for the fact that the TIE Advanced is built on a defensive strategy, rather than offensive, it still fails to justify its cost. Primarily for two reasons:

- Attack dice are better than defense dice. This isn't a hypothetical "the best defense is a good offense" argument, but that attack dice have only 2 blanks, while defense dice have 3. An equal number of attack+defense dice between two craft, with the balance one way on one ship vs the other...is a substantial advantage to the ship that balances in favor of attack dice.

- The X-Wing provides a ROBUST set of upgrade options via the astromech slot. Especially now that the E-Wing expansion is dropping even more droids on us (but even before then!). Not to mention the X-Wing now has three SKUs worth of pilots/upgrades/etc (core set, X-Wing expansion, Rebel Transport expansion) vs the TIE Advanced only having one.

So it's definitely true that the X-Wing and TIE Advanced *should* be very comparable...the actual details of the implementation and current retail reality of the game system invalidate that.

(Now, all that said, as I've noted a few times - I don't think the problem is as massive as it might appear. The comparison to the X-Wing is particularly illuminating, as you can see how close its capabilities are. I think an Imperial version of Chardaan would be the best fit - eat up the missile slot, reduce cost by only 1, add system upgrade slot. I think that'd do what needs to be done for it!)

I notice that your "analysis" ( ) manages to completely forget the fact that the Advanced comes with Evade and more notably Barrel Roll , which is the most powerful and flexible action in the game. An action which will tend to give the TIE Advanced more and better shots than the X-wing will receive.

Too, you seem to forget that the Imperial player will tend to have the initiative. Another non-trivial advantage which costs nothing and will tend to give the TIE Advanced more and better shots...

To get an idea of just how potent and flexible these factors really are, try this: Set an X-wing down behind a TIE Advanced somewhere near the middle of range 2 (basically the strongest possible position to be in, in a dogfight). Play out say, five turns, keeping track of how many shots the X-wing would get. The answer is generally one or two, contingent upon good guesses from the X-wing pilot.

Now, try the opposite. A TIE Advanced at around range 2 of an X-wing's backside. Spoiler: In five turns of maneuvers, the TIE Advanced will get three or four shots along many decision trees. Often these shots are guaranteed by choosing a non-committal maneuver and then barrel rolling as necessary. If you feel like expanding the exercise, try similar setups from different ranges, different facings. Jousting situations, shallow and deep angles, etc. It's useful knowledge - very enlightening.

Now, clearly this isn't the end of the story - but it does sort've highlight some problems with your "analysis". Try not to leave out little things like the game , hey?

The condescending snark in this post is off the charts....good lord man, don't get so offensive

'kay. Sorry.

Will try to tone it down in the future.

It is hard sometimes, as I am in fact a condescending snark!

You've described the roll of the x1, but not the standard Advanced. This poor ship needs an identity.

I'm pretty sure the x1 is the standard advance (ie Vader's ship).

Edit:Checked Wookiepedia my mistake. Didn't realize the avenger was called the advance.

Yeah, technically it was the other way around, the final production version of the TIE Advanced was the ship that had the nickname "TIE Avenger". But it really wasn't even the same ship. Aside from some pretty major cosmetic differences, the stat line differences, translated into this game, would be 2/3/3/2 vs 3/3/3/4. And the TIE Avenger's maneuverability was to the TIE Interceptor as the TIE Interceptor was to the TIE Fighter or even the Advanced x1. I'm hoping they will make a model for it, even if it doesn't have the original stats, but since its such a different craft I don't see it as a "fix" fit the TIE Advanced x1.

Explain to me how you can come up with a formula to account for the random rolling of dice. Adding in variables for re-rolls because of abilities, target locks, upgrade cards. On top of using focus tokens to change results, special card effects that further change dice results. If you could come up with a formula in order to determine the random variables? You could come up with numbers, however you CANNOT be right constantly. The fact is when it comes down to the math it will always be right/constant. The practical rolling of dice however is not the same as a mathematical formula.

P.S. Once you understand the concept of the PDF (probability density function), the above is fairly trivial. It's slightly more challenging to compute the total PDF of multi-round attacks on a target that is being shot at by kinds of attacks, and the defender has an arbitrary number of focus tokens, evade tokens, and a stealth device.

But it's possible! I have magic Matlab scripts....

Explain to me how you can come up with a formula to account for the random rolling of dice. Adding in variables for re-rolls because of abilities, target locks, upgrade cards. On top of using focus tokens to change results, special card effects that further change dice results. If you could come up with a formula in order to determine the random variables? You could come up with numbers, however you CANNOT be right constantly. The fact is when it comes down to the math it will always be right/constant. The practical rolling of dice however is not the same as a mathematical formula.

P.S. Once you understand the concept of the PDF (probability density function), the above is fairly trivial. It's slightly more challenging to compute the total PDF of multi-round attacks on a target that is being shot at by kinds of attacks, and the defender has an arbitrary number of focus tokens, evade tokens, and a stealth device.

But it's possible! I have magic Matlab scripts....

Eh, I just see it as you are putting math down on a piece of paper. It doesn't by any chance show that it will be 100% accurate in the field (On the board rolling dice, making maneuvers, etc). If you could consistently show in a practical usage that this happens..well awesome, I would understand then. I just don't see it happening outside the paper and pen area of putting things down. You can get a rough estimate and hypothesis about the value of a ship. But only practical use based on what the many variables exposed to it during a game, will give you a value I believe.

Not saying you are wrong, I take back if I've said that anywhere. I just can't see how you can translate the paper and pen stats onto the game board. Guess I'm more of a hands on learner than I am working with math and formulas. So I'm going to agree to disagree on that matter.

Anyone tried running this build to see if it worked?

Darth Vader - Expose - Engine Upgrade

Mauler Mithel - Swarm Tactics

Howlrunner - Swarm Tactics

Academy Pilot

Academy Pilot

True or false, this is an artifact. The artifact is created as a function of three assumptions:

1) All ships should be measured against the TIE Fighter

2) Offense is more important than defense

3) Maneuvers are too complex to usefully contribute to cost/benefit analysis, and so we should focus primarily on what happens in the shooting phase.

One and three are obviously fallacious.

1) Everything is inherently a relative comparison, and you have to use something as a standard, so why not use the most-played ship in the game? So no, I don't see any reason why comparing everything to the TIE Fighter is "fallacious". It really doesn't matter what you use as a reference point, as long as you say "X is overcosted relative to Y". What you then do with that information is very important. In this case, I'm saying that the TIE Advanced is overcosted by 3+ points relative to the TIE Fighter, and have proposed a House Rules change to give it a free FCS and a -1 point cost change (for non-Vader ships), which works out to a buff of slightly less than 3 points. So, the TIE Advanced still won't be replacing the TIE Fighter anytime soon, but it would have a unique and useful role as a cost-effective ship that is also the only one that can have FCS and a missile slot, making them the best at using Cluster Missiles outside of Jonus supported bombers.

3) The dial is obviously very important. However in the case of the TIE Advanced, it is less important than, say, an Interceptor with Boost. So the jousting numbers become much more relevant in this particular case. Even if you include the dial and its upgrades on a similar scale as the other ships, you still have a VERY overcosted TIE Advanced.

It's certainly not possible to argue that: "We can't quantify all of the upgrades on the ship. Since we don't know how everything is valued, we can't claim that it is overcosted", since there are so many other data points in this case.

Eh, I just see it as you are putting math down on a piece of paper. It doesn't by any chance show that it will be 100% accurate in the field (On the board rolling dice, making maneuvers, etc).

As far as the rolling of the dice portion, the probability density function is 100% accuracy in showing what the likelihood of a distribution of events is. The simplest case is a fair coin, which has a 50% chance of landing heads or tails. It doesn't say that you couldn't flip heads 1000 times in a row, only that the probability of that happening would be 0.5^1000 = 9x10^-302. Statistics 101.

Vorpal and I are both getting our PhDs, mine in electrical engineering. You can trust us on this one. The wiki link I provided is informative as well, but it is math-verbose and less heavy on practical examples.

Explain to me how you can come up with a formula to account for the random rolling of dice. Adding in variables for re-rolls because of abilities, target locks, upgrade cards. On top of using focus tokens to change results, special card effects that further change dice results. If you could come up with a formula in order to determine the random variables? You could come up with numbers, however you CANNOT be right constantly. The fact is when it comes down to the math it will always be right/constant. The practical rolling of dice however is not the same as a mathematical formula.

P.S. Once you understand the concept of the PDF (probability density function), the above is fairly trivial. It's slightly more challenging to compute the total PDF of multi-round attacks on a target that is being shot at by kinds of attacks, and the defender has an arbitrary number of focus tokens, evade tokens, and a stealth device.

But it's possible! I have magic Matlab scripts....

Eh, I just see it as you are putting math down on a piece of paper. It doesn't by any chance show that it will be 100% accurate in the field (On the board rolling dice, making maneuvers, etc). If you could consistently show in a practical usage that this happens..well awesome, I would understand then. I just don't see it happening outside the paper and pen area of putting things down. You can get a rough estimate and hypothesis about the value of a ship. But only practical use based on what the many variables exposed to it during a game, will give you a value I believe.

Not saying you are wrong, I take back if I've said that anywhere. I just can't see how you can translate the paper and pen stats onto the game board. Guess I'm more of a hands on learner than I am working with math and formulas. So I'm going to agree to disagree on that matter.

Anyone tried running this build to see if it worked?

Darth Vader - Expose - Engine Upgrade

Mauler Mithel - Swarm Tactics

Howlrunner - Swarm Tactics

Academy Pilot

Academy Pilot

So... let me understand your logic. Let's make it even more simple. We're flipping a coin. There are two equal results, heads or tails. If you flip it once, "pen and paper" tell you that you have a 50% chance of a head. Now, you go and flip a coin... do you disagree that you have a 50% chance of a head? What if in the field, you get a tail? Does that mean that the math is wrong?

And now we flip the coin 3 times. "Pen and Paper" says the following is the distribution of results for # of heads:

0 = 12.5%

1 = 37.5%

2 = 37.5%

3 = 12.5%

For an average number of heads = 1.5. Going out into the field and flipping a coin 100 times and getting 100 heads doesn't mean that your coin is good at getting a head... It means you're getting extremely lucky. And I highly doubt that you would bet on yourself for flipping 100 more heads.

Math is used in the same way to predict how a specific ship will roll and survive. Just because your interceptor was 1 shot at R3 w/ a stealth through an asteroid by an A wing doesn't mean that you should never fly an interceptor again because it dies in the first attack... and it doesn't mean that A wings are the counter to interceptors... It means you got **** unlucky. This is affected by the standard deviation of a PDF, and is also why 1 agility ships with the same effective health are favored over 3 agility ships with the same effective health. There is less variation in the results of the 1 agi ship than the 3... so while you'll have some games where Fel just can't be touched, other games he'll get one shot. Whereas you know that B wing should last a full round of focus fire, but pretty much nothing else... And that's pretty much what will happen.

Juggler, I suggest you give up. Just like some people will always dismiss evolution, regardless of how many facts there are supporting it... some will just dismiss math regardless of how much it's true. Oh well... maybe they'll also dismiss gravity because it hasn't been proven and try to fly (are you really flying if there's no gravity, or are you just floating?) because gravity hasn't been proven to exist.

@MajorJuggler

Whether you have a PhD, you have all the facts in the world. You are not perfect, the math on sheets of paper can be PERFECT. The difference comes in the hypothetical data and practical application of the hypothetical data. I can trust the math, the idea, and formula as much as you want me too. But when I turn around and play the game, the outcomes WILL be different everytime based on the human factors and the element of unpredictability because you can't input for either of them.

I understand that math is SOLID and the formulas are correct in THEORY. However you just simple cannot plug in a value for the human aspect of a game, the involves the thoughts and actions of a person behind it. The element of unpredictability in terms of rolling the dice, what damage cards you draw when getting criticals, upgrade card abilities, etc. These aspects cannot be accounted for in such ways that it makes the theory sustainable once they are included. Does that make sense as to why I don't believe in your ideas about the "value' of ships and formula?

@Khyros

This subject pales in comparison to the ones you referenced, as I stated above. You can use formula and math in order to bring about the "Theory" or an "Idea" based on math. On paper it will look and seem perfect, but you simple can't account for the other elements included in this game. In practical use the idea holds no weight because the outside elements will just prove it wrong/right on a back to back basis, understand?

The TIE Advanced is overcosted...

...created as a function of three assumptions:

1) All ships should be measured against the TIE Fighter

2) Offense is more important than defense

3) Maneuvers are too complex to usefully contribute to cost/benefit analysis, and so we should focus primarily on what happens in the shooting phase.

One and three are obviously fallacious. Two is primarily true when you put your games on a time limit.

(1) and (3) are straw men, and (2) by no means depends on playing timed games. With respect to (1), the TIE Advanced is overcosted in comparison to quite literally every other starfighter in the game.

That's because (2) is true in every game, timed or not; the dice themselves are weighted toward attack (red dice have more "success" faces), and green dice make no direct contribution to the game's most typical victory condition (i.e., kill everything). What green dice can do is earn you more opportunities to attack, which brings me to (3). You can absolutely include the effects of maneuvering in a cost-benefit analysis, although I haven't done so because it's not necessary.

As I wrote in my previous post, even fudging the numbers in the direction of the TIE Advanced says that it's about 87% as effective as an X-wing. Putting a real target in place makes things look worse; when shooting at a Firespray, the TIE Advanced has approximately 44% of the offense of an X-wing, and 167% of the X-wing's durability. That means its overall effectiveness is 0.44 * 1.67 = 73% of the X-wing's, over its lifespan.

And that means that in order to match an X-wing, the Advanced would need to increase its effectiveness by over a third (1/0.73 = 1.37). This is where timed games come in, not in the comparison between attack and defense: assuming both the TIE Advanced and X-wing could win this matchup, the TIE Advanced would take much longer.

(Note that no paragraph up to this point has contained the words "TIE Fighter" anywhere.)

The only major advantage the TIE Advanced has over the X-wing is that it has a barrel roll. And yes, that can mean it occasionally gets to make an attack the X-wing would have missed out on, or that it can slip out of a firing arc and avoid an attack the X-wing would have suffered. Can it do those things often enough to improve its effectiveness by 37% over baseline? And can it do so in a sufficiently timely fashion?

A TIE Advanced deals, on average, no more than 60% of the damage of an X-wing. It lives, on average, no more than 45% longer than an X-wing.

This is true within the confines of a joust. It stops being true the instant you put the two in a sandbox and start flying them around. The Advanced gets approximately 30-50% more shooting turns than an X-wing.

(I'm taking this out of order, but it feels like it goes here.)

This is not limited to jousting, although it does have the assumption that the X-wing and TIE Fighter attack and defend the same proportion of the time relative to total rounds. You say it gets 30-50% more shooting turns, which is a vast overestimate in my experience, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument--perhaps we just fly very differently.

But that 50% is further reduced in effectiveness by the fact that the way the Advanced gets those extra attacks is by using its barrel roll to position more effectively. And if you're making a barrel roll, you're not using target lock or focus, which means you're giving your opponent an advantage in the action economy. So now it's no longer an equal comparison between the TIE Advanced and the X-wing, because the X-wing's attacks are now even more effective by comparison; instead of doing about half (44%) of the X-wing's damage, it's now doing about a quarter (24%). So now it's only 40% as effective as the X-wing under the equal-proportions assumption--meaning it has to get not 37% but 150% more attacks than the X-wing.

And all of this uncomfortable math is to reinforce the point that the Advanced is simply not as effective as an X-wing--or, in fact, as any other fighter. It's dreadfully inefficient on offense, and the tactic people keep suggesting as an advantage actually functions as a delaying measure and pushes the comparison from "somewhat sub-par" to "improbably dreadful".

(This is one of the reasons I can get behind the idea of a systems upgrade as a fix for the TIE Advanced, by the way: a Fire Control System makes exactly this tactic suddenly viable, because I can get my barrel roll and a target lock.)

You cannot reasonably argue that the Tie Advanced is overcosted without arguing that the X-wing is just as overcosted. And the X-wing is one of the most successful tournament performers in the game.

I've seen this claim before, and it makes no more sense to me in this context. In order to do so you have to argue that an increase from 2 Attack to 3 Attack is no more valuable than an increase from 2 Agility to 3 Agility, and that's indefensible from a mathematical standpoint (as well as from my own fairly extensive play experience).

B) The Tie Advanced has no particular role

This, I think, is the real problem. The pilots don't do anything in particular. You have no options. There is no reason to take a 2PS Advanced with a missile for 25 points over a 2PS bomber with a missile for 20 points. Ever.

Happily, this is easy to fix. We'll see an expansion pack for the TIE Advanced sooner or later - count on it.

I agree with this--but it stems from the fact that the TIE Advanced isn't actually good at anything but surviving, in a game where surviving for a really long time isn't particularly rewarded. It's a consequence of everything else I (and others) have written about the Advanced in... what is it, three threads in the past week? It's terribly inefficient on offense, it has a meager upgrade bar that frequently fails to reward your additional investment, and there's nothing it does that isn't done better by at least one other Imperial fighter.

The Advanced gets approximately 30-50% more shooting turns than an X-wing.

Citation please.

*assuming the Imperial player has initiative and the two are of the same pilot skill

Earlier in the thread I suggested a series of scenarios to test. You simply run down the likely decision trees in a likely scenario: two fighters at range two of each other. The results, in this case, are that the X-wing pilot has to consistently guess the opponent's maneuvers to get any shots at all. The TIE Advanced pilot has a much easier time lining up shots.

This approach, while imperfect, starts to give us some idea of how to make optimal use of the TIE Advanced in a match.

When choosing a standard against which to weigh every other fighter in the game, I would choose a median rather than an outlier. As a tool for garnering advantage in a competitive environment, fine...

But people are trying to leverage your analysis as a starting point for balancing the TIE Advanced.

(I'm taking this out of order, but it feels like it goes here.)

This is not limited to jousting, although it does have the assumption that the X-wing and TIE Fighter attack and defend the same proportion of the time relative to total rounds. You say it gets 30-50% more shooting turns, which is a vast overestimate in my experience, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument--perhaps we just fly very differently.

But that 50% is further reduced in effectiveness by the fact that the way the Advanced gets those extra attacks is by using its barrel roll to position more effectively. And if you're making a barrel roll, you're not using target lock or focus, which means you're giving your opponent an advantage in the action economy. So now it's no longer an equal comparison between the TIE Advanced and the X-wing, because the X-wing's attacks are now even more effective by comparison; instead of doing about half (44%) of the X-wing's damage, it's now doing about a quarter (24%). So now it's only 40% as effective as the X-wing under the equal-proportions assumption--meaning it has to get not 37% but 150% more attacks than the X-wing.

I take your point, but the barrel roll isn't necessarily mandatory. It often merely guarantees a shot. Better guesses about the opponent's maneuver still buy you better shots. Situational

*assuming the Imperial player has initiative…

Why?

But people are trying to leverage your analysis as a starting point for balancing the TIE Advanced.

Which people? I, for instance, am doing nothing of the sort.

The Advanced gets approximately 30-50% more shooting turns than an X-wing.

Citation please.

*assuming the Imperial player has initiative and the two are of the same pilot skill

Earlier in the thread I suggested a series of scenarios to test. You simply run down the likely decision trees in a likely scenario: two fighters at range two of each other. The results, in this case, are that the X-wing pilot has to consistently guess the opponent's maneuvers to get any shots at all. The TIE Advanced pilot has a much easier time lining up shots.

That's a theory, not a citation. A citation is still needed from actual 100 point games with a reasonable statistical certainty.

Juggler, I suggest you give up. Just like some people will always dismiss evolution, regardless of how many facts there are supporting it... some will just dismiss math regardless of how much it's true. Oh well... maybe they'll also dismiss gravity because it hasn't been proven and try to fly (are you really flying if there's no gravity, or are you just floating?) because gravity hasn't been proven to exist.

Good advice.

That's a theory, not a citation. A citation is still needed from actual 100 point games with a reasonable statistical certainty.

;_;

b-but... my pet theory...

Alright. It's been taking me a while to sort through everything here.

I guess that's me thoroughly told.

So let's play out your hypothetical 1 on 1... which btw, is not a representation of an actual 100pt dog fight. And lets say whoever is in the lead have init and moves first. Lets start with the X wing in the lead.

First move the X wing does is a 4K. If you don't do this, you won't have a shot. Now you don't get an action because you're stressed. The x1 can go 2 straight, or bank/turn left or right. There's no reason to turn. At best you're guessing 50/50 left/right. At worst it K turns. Knowing that K turn is the most likely move, I would think the x1 would go 2 straight, though I could see it doing a 1 bank to slow itself down.

So if it does 2 straight, it gets an action, lets just say everyone focuses unless the x1 BRs. If it 1 banked left or right, it then needs to BR to get a shot. Either way, X wing gets a shot. 3 dice at R2 vs. 3 dice w/ F... deals .3 damage. 2v2 return fire deals .51 damage. x1 health = 4.7, XW health = 4.49.

If it went straight, then it will have to K turn in order to have a shot, meanwhile the X wing won't be able to have a shot. So the X wing will go 4 straight to put distance between them, or a 2 straight to clear stress and F. x1 will do a K turn and stress... but will have a shot at the original R2. He will do .12 damage. x1 health = 4.7, XW = 4.37 health.

Now the X will K turn and the x1 will go 2 straight or 1 bank to clear stress. 3Fv3F = .64... 2v2 = .51. x1 = 4.06 XW = 3.86... This is the same scenario that it was in at the start. This is what we call jousting. And lo and behold, during a joust, the ship behind seems to have the upper hand. Note - X wing shoots 67% of the time, x1 shoots 100% of the time.

If we reversed the positions, the x1 should again 4k so he gets a shot. the X wing will slow ball it though with a 1 straight. This should setup a R3 engagement. 2v3F = .12. 3v4 = .5. XW = 4.88 health, x1 = 4.5 health.

Turn 2 they can both go forward, which is the smart thing to do so they both have shots and actions. The x1 could potentially race forward to block the XW, but then he'll be stressed and the XW won't. Not good. So 2forward for the x1, 1forward for the XW yields a R1 shot w/ f. 3Fv3F = .64... 4v3 = 1.06. And then they both K turn and the X wing continues to do more damage. After two rounds, the x1 health = 3.44 and XW = 4.24. The XW is winning by a far greater margin than the x1 was when it was behind.

But lets also look at if the X wing is in front and tries to outfly his opponent. He can do a 2 turn, hoping to catch the x1 off guard. We're going to assume that the trailing unit guesses correctly which way the lead unit is going to go. So the x1 can do a 2 bank to line up a nice shot. And then the XW should continue doing another 2 left... and the x1 will do a 2 left as well, and likely barrel roll left so he has a shot. And this can keep continuing and the X wing will never have a shot while the x1 will slowly kill him.

Meanwhile, if the XW is behind, the x1 can do the same 2 left, and the XW can do a 2 bank. And then the same moves follow... 2 left turns each... the XW might not have a shot, but the x1 for sure doesn't. If the x1 continues to turn left, the XW will continue to maybe have shots, maybe not... but the x1 never will. So I don't really get the point of this exercise. It basically proves being behind and having a shot is better than being in front. I suppose if the trailing unit had init, the lead x1 might be able to do some fancy BR to get out of arcs... but without the 1 forward, the XW will continue to stay behind the x1 until he K turns. So the x1 won't get any shots.

You've described the roll of the x1, but not the standard Advanced. This poor ship needs an identity.

I'm pretty sure the x1 is the standard advance (ie Vader's ship).

Edit:Checked Wookiepedia my mistake. Didn't realize the avenger was called the advance.

Yeah, technically it was the other way around, the final production version of the TIE Advanced was the ship that had the nickname "TIE Avenger". But it really wasn't even the same ship. Aside from some pretty major cosmetic differences, the stat line differences, translated into this game, would be 2/3/3/2 vs 3/3/3/4. And the TIE Avenger's maneuverability was to the TIE Interceptor as the TIE Interceptor was to the TIE Fighter or even the Advanced x1. I'm hoping they will make a model for it, even if it doesn't have the original stats, but since its such a different craft I don't see it as a "fix" fit the TIE Advanced x1.

Which brings us back to the point I was making before. Outside of Vader (who flies an x1) what roll does the Advanced play that another ship can't do better/cheaper? Took me awhile to admit this, but the Advanced is the only ship in the game (currently) that has no real role or reason to play. And that is upsetting.

So even if you don't like/buy the math-wing argument, I'm offering one that is straight logic.

I tried a 1vs1: 34 Points.

I chose Maarek with Marksmanship + Clusters.

My Opponent: Luke + R2D2 + Expert Handling.

This fight was like a bad joke ... xD

I tried a 1vs1: 34 Points.

I chose Maarek with Marksmanship + Clusters.

My Opponent: Luke + R2D2 + Expert Handling.

This fight was like a bad joke ... xD

1 vs. 1 doesn't tell the whole story, but yeah... Luke is a nightmare to kill because of his ability. Then you gave him R2D2 and EH to boot! To be fair, run two naked 21 point Advanced against two naked 21 point X-wings. 1 on 1, the Advanced has a good chance of winning this one. It gets ugly when the x-wings have friends....

That's a theory, not a citation. A citation is still needed from actual 100 point games with a reasonable statistical certainty.

;_;

b-but... my pet theory...

Alright. It's been taking me a while to sort through everything here.

I don't necessarily agree with the metrics in use, but I cannot produce a better argument.

I guess that's me thoroughly told.

Don't get me wrong, theories are good. But to be honest it's hard to figure something like that out one way or the other without observing a bunch of games. And, ironically, since nobody really uses the TIE Advanced, there's not a good data set to work with.

What I'm really curious about is if people try out the free FCS and -1 point cost in play testing, if that seems balanced. I doubt it would be overpowered, but I haven't tried it yet.

Vorpal and I are both getting our PhDs, mine in electrical engineering. You can trust us on this one. The wiki link I provided is informative as well, but it is math-verbose and less heavy on practical examples.

I've seen your posts before and decided not to say anything, but that is rather condescending. Granted, you are actually right on this item (dice rolls can be modeled with a pdf), but that statement is too much. I'll keep this in mind next time you post an "analysis" of something.

This thread seems to have commonality with the "Interceptors are Dead (sp?)" thread. I wonder if what we are seeing is planned obsolescence from a company that makes money selling a product...Wave 1 came out and attracted customers, Wave 2 needed to be exciting and an improvement over Wave 1. Wave 3 comes out and is more exciting than Wave 2. As the Aces pack is realeased and plans for Wave 4 are spoiling the excitement surrounding it is making Wave 3 look tarnished.

Maybe that is the plan to keep people buying and keep the product fresh. Think of playing only Wave 1 and 2 ships and cards and such and see how Vader stacks up...

Vorpal and I are both getting our PhDs, mine in electrical engineering. You can trust us on this one. The wiki link I provided is informative as well, but it is math-verbose and less heavy on practical examples.

I've seen your posts before and decided not to say anything, but that is rather condescending. Granted, you are actually right on this item (dice rolls can be modeled with a pdf), but that statement is too much. I'll keep this in mind next time you post an "analysis" of something.

He's using a statement to explain why their numbers are credible. Whether or not you agree with the methodology, or -- in some cases -- include enough information is really up to you. I say this as someone who respects efforts of both and, while I find MJ's numbers in other threads interesting and informative, I can't really give them "final" say as there's no way to accurately represent a few things that are very important to the game (dials and synergy within other lists). I've only actually seen these two as pretty harsh toward each other.